1921-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act."- The Solicitor General.
Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act."-The Solicitor General.
Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Disfranchising Act."-The Solicitor General.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to amend the statutes relating to corrupt practices at elections.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain,
please.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, this Bill
is intended to take the place of the three Bills which appear on the Order Paper and which at my request have to-day been withdrawn. At first it was thought proper to amend the three separate Acts, namely, the Dominion Controverted Elections Act,-the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, and

the Disfranchising Act. The amendments were all consequential amendments, consequent upon the passage of the Act last session known as the Dominion Elections Act. The House will remember that prior to the enactment of the Dominion Elections Act at the last session we had an offence under the former law known as the offence of "corrupting practice" or "corrupt practice". In the law passed past session we added an offence of irregularity, known as an "illegal practice", so that now we have these two irregularities in our layr, the "corrupt practice" and "illegal practice." The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, and the Disfranchising Act, were drawn in reference to the law as it formerly stood, and as these Acts appear on the statute book to-day, they take no cognizance whatever of "illegal practices." The Chief Electoral Officer has prepared the Bill which I ask for leave to introduce, to meet this difficulty and to apply as an amendment to the three Acts which I have just specified.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question based upon an interview given by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Mr. E. W. Beatty, in which he is reported to have said something in regard to immigration into this country, giving it as his opinion that the present regulations should be modified. I desire to ask the Government if it is their intention to bring down legislation at this session making the immigration laws less restrictive with regard to the nationality of immigrants coming into Canada.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: The Government has
no legislation under consideration on the subject at the present time. If any is to be brought down, announcement will be made in due course.



PONTIAC CENSUS COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK CAHILL (Pontiac):: I
wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when the census commissioners for the county of Pontiac will be appointed.


Right Hon.   S@: The
census commissioners for the county of Pontiac have been appointed.



REPORT OF TARIFF COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche):: Is it the intention of the Government to submit soon to this House a report from the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) of the information secured lately from all persons interested in every province in connection with the revision of the tariff?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Finance is not present to-day. I may say, however, that other committees of inquiry into the tariff have sat in the past and held inquiries, and to the best of my knowledge no formal report was ever submitted by them. The object of such commissions is to secure information upon which a tariff may be based.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, to incorporate La Compag-nie de Telephone Quebec Union Electrique (The Quebec Union Electric Telephone Company).-Mr. Power.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway company.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 32, fo incorporate The Canadian Transit company.-Mr. Kennedy, Essex.	x
Bill No. 33, An Act respecting the "Credit Fonder Franco-Canadien."-Mr. Cha-bot.
Bill No. 34, respecting The London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation company.-Mr. Glass.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 15, to incorporate the North American Trust Company of Canada, and recommending that the title be changed to "An Act to incorporate the Scottish Canadian Trust Company."-Mr. Mowat.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-incorporation:
Mr. MOWAT:: In view of the discussion which took place in the House at the last sitting, when objection was taken by another company, and having regard to

the fact that it is not the desire of the promoters of the Bill to take any undue advantage, I would ask that the matter stand and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is there any connection between this company and the North American Life Assurance Company?


Mr. MOW  AT@: My hon. friend will see, from the report of the committee, that it is proposed that the name be changed to the Scottish Canadian Trust Company. But some objection has been made even to the change in name, and it is thought that the Banking and Commerce Committee can better dispose of these differences than they can be disposed of here.


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Mowat moves
that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Before this motion is adopted I desire to say a few words as chairman of the committee. When the matter came up on Friday last I was in my place and had intended to speak at that time, but it appeared to me that the procedure was not strictly in accordance with the rules of the House, inasmuch as the motion was put when the Speaker was about to leave the Chair. This special Bill should not have been mentioned at that time; the motion usually is that the House go into Committee of the Whole on private bills, no specific bill being mentioned. Now, we have endeavoured in the committee to arrive at satisfactory conclusions on the matters that have come before us. It would be well for this committee to look at rule 91, which refers to this matter and which distinctly states, on page 51, that when an application of this kind is made-
The name of the proposed company shall be stated in the notice.
In this case, we had three names stated in the notice, and at the request of the promoters of the Bill, the change was made from the " North American Company to the Scottish-Canadian Company." During the six weeks that this Bill had been advertised, no objection was taken to the words "Scotish-Canadian." I think the committee will realize that it is very difficult to get a name that does not conflict with the ideas of someone with regard to incorporations. For instance, the word " Empire " occurs five times, and the word

" Canada " probably occurs twenty times in lists of incorporations that have been made within recent years, so that it is difficult to get a name that suits all parties. The desire of the committee is that the name shall be distintive, and as regards the use of the words " Scottish " and " Canadian," if they the used together in any one Act, the name apears to me sufficiently distinctive. But in this particular case, if I am properly informed, though there is a company styled the " Scottish-Canadian," incoporated by an Act of the province of Quebec, that company has not been organized and is not doing business. I could not say definitely as to that, but that is my information. If that be the case, and it does not appear in the records of the House that we have ever granted an incorporation under that name, it would appear to me that it is not taking too much for granted if we allow the name " Scottish-Canadian " to stand. I do not want to take any ground that will jeopardize the rights of any company; as chairman of the committee, I am desirous that we should avoid doing so; but this House has power to fix the name and the committee has not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was any objection
taken to the name while it was advertised?


William Foster Cockshutt: No, and the proposed incorporation was advertised for six weeks. Up to the present moment, I have, as chairman of the committee, had no intimation that the name was objected to. The first intimation I had was on Friday last when it was moved, without discussion, that the Bill be referred back, and I had no knowledge of the reasons for that action. We had three names to choose from-North American, Scottish-Canadian and Metropolitan. It is quite possible that the name " Metropolitan " will be objected to, so that the committee will then be powerless to give the Bill a name. It is particularly provided, under the rules of the House, that the final motion is that the Bill be passed and, the title be as in the Order Paper, or some other name which the House is willing should be placed on the Bill. If there is material evidence to offer to the committee with regard to the objection of using the name " Scottish-Canadian," certainly we could have no objection to hearing that; but up to the present, I have had given to me no reason that I think at all sufficient to warrant the referring back of the Bill. I would suggest that the Bill be considered in order to find out if there is anything else to which objection might be taken, and then

if it is thought of sufficient importance by this committee to refer it back, that action might be taken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no personal objection to the Bill as it stands, but I might remind hy hon. friend that the three names which have been suggested for this trust company are, to my personal knowledge, already used by insurance companies. I was mentioning1 one a moment ago.


William Foster Cockshutt: This is not an insurance company; it is a trust company.
Mr. LEMIEUX I know that, but the names are used by some big insurance companies. The North American Trust suggests the idea that it might be a subsidiary of the North American Life Assurance Company, the Metropolitan Trust suggests the idea that it might be a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and the name " Scottish-Canadian " is, if I am not mistaken, used by the old London and Lancashire Insurance Company of Montreal, which has changed its name to the Scottish-Canadian Insurance Company. I happen to know this through some business which I did not very long ago with that company. I do not at all object if the committee is agreeable to giving that name to the trust company, but I warn my hon. friend that, perhaps, some interested parties might object to it. Perhaps, if we should refer the Bill back to the committee, after Easter it could come before the House again. I have no personal objection; I am only pointing out that all three names are suggestive of three life assurance companies, and my hon. friend, I know would be the last man to injure, even by implication and through a name, any other firm.


Hugh Guthrie: I know nothing about this particular case, except that on Friday night last at about five minutes to eight o'clock, the solicitor for the Scottish Canadian Trust Company or Scottish Trust Company of Canada-I do not know exactly which it is-came to me and asked me to request the committee to refer this Bill back in order that further consideration might be given to the name. There is an evident blunder in the name as it appears in the Orders of the Day. It is called the "Scottish Canadian Trust Company of Canada," so that there is an unnecessary duplication, and it would be necessary to refer it back on account of that. The complaint made to me was that when the Bill was originally advertised, it was advertised in the name of the North
American Trust Company. It is true two alternative names were submitted, but any one glancing at the advertisement would think it was the North American Trust Company. It happens there is a Scottish Canadian Insurance Company and a Scottish Trust Company of Canada, both of them having their head office in Quebec. If the name is referred back to the committee the matter can be settled without great difficulty, and those persons who are interested or who think they have a grievance can appear and state their cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like also to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) that, as regards the use of the words "Royal" or "Empire," some years ago, that is, prior to 1911, an Order in Council was passed by the Federal Government at the request of the Home Government that the Canadian Government do hot issue letters patent to or incorporate companies using those names. I know the rule was strictly adhered to, and I do not know how it has happened that since then we have allowed any companies to use the name "Empire" or the name "Royal."


William Foster Cockshutt: I quite recognize the force of the hon. gentleman's argument. I want to point out-I do not think I did so before-that we were limited to those three names, all of which my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) says will be objected to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They might be.


William Foster Cockshutt: I understood my
hon. friend to say that they would be. I am pointing out that, under the rules of the House, it is necessary that the name shall be stated and that it shall be advertised for six weeks. A period of six weeks at this stage of the proceedings is quite a serious item. It would be probably a week or two before the advertisement would appear, so that it might be eight weeks before this Bill could again come before the House, even if we succeeded fairly well in getting a name that is not objected to. The rule is that the name has to be advertised, and we could not violate that rule without special permission.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: What is the name of the company?


William Foster Cockshutt: At present, as appears on the Order Paper, "The Scottish Canadian Trust Company of Canada."


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: "Where does the word "Royal" come in?


William Foster Cockshutt: It does not come in at all. That word was just mentioned as a precaution, that we should not use it in any alternative name. The words "of Canada" are tautological, and should be struck out. The mover of the amendment did not notice that at the time, and I was going to move that those words be struck out. This committee could do that without referring the Bill back. I want the committee to understand, however, that under the rules, if one or other of these three names is not selected, it will be necessary to have another six weeks' advertising in the Gazette.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been done many times without it.


Mr. NESBITT:: May I suggest that the
committee can fix it in a few minutes. You could adopt one of these names. The name, North American Trust Company, does not conflict with the name of any other trust company that I know of.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might point out to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) that on Friday evening no motion was made concerning this Bill whatever. When the Order was called for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on this Bill the motion, which will be found on page 112 of the Votes and Proceedings, read as follows:
Mr. Fripp moved, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on Private Bills (pursuant to rule 109) ; which was agreed to.
This Bill was not considered in Committee of the Whole owing to the objection made by the hon. the acting Solicitor General, upon the motion to go into committee. Concerning the request which has now been made that the Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, I must rule that the Committee of the Whole House has no right to make this reference. It will therefore be necessary for this committee to report progress to Mr. Speaker, and a motion made in the House to refer the Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee, will then be in order.


William Foster Cockshutt: Perhaps I might be pardoned, Mr. Chairman, for drawing your attention to how the matter appears in Hansard, for that is where I was looking. It appears by Hansard that Mr. Fripp moved:
That the House go into 'Committee on Bill No. 15, to incorporate the North American Trust Company of Canada, and recommending that

the title he changed to "An Act to Incorporate the Scottish Canadian Trust Company of Canada."-Mr. Mowatt.
I think the Votes and Proceedings is Correct, and that Hansard is incorrect.


Georges Henri Boivin: The mistake in Hansard is easily explainable by the fact that the motion was made immediately after the Clerk Assistant had read that order, though it was a different motion that was submitted from the Chair.
Progress reported.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I beg to move:
That the Order of the Day for the House to go into committee on Bill No. 15, An Act to Incorporate North American Trust Company of Canada, be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally-are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Were tenders called lately for cedar posts in connection with the operation of the Canadian National railways?
2.	If so, were notices advertising the calling of such tenders posted up in the northern part of the province of New Brunswick and particularly along the Intercolonial railway?
3.	How many tenders were received, what were the names of those tendering and the respective amounts of each tender?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Tenders were called for cedar posts in connection with the operation of Canadian National railways. Notices of requirements were sent to 22 firms in the various districts who could supply posts. Twelve tenders were received, and contracts were awarded in the best interests of the railways. It is not in the public interests to disclose further information.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-BOARD OI ARBITRATION
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What salary or allowance is to be paid to the members of the Board of arbitration appointed to determine the actual value of the Grand Trunk Railway company and subsidiary companies ?
2.	By whom is the said salary or allowance being paid to the said arbitrators?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The matter has not yet been' considered.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Dr. J. D. Page, Acting Dominion Immigration Agent at Quebec.
4.	Mental deficiency.
5.	Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- OPERATING DIVISIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER, M.P.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	How many divisions, or operating divisions, are there on the Canadian National Railway, and what are their names?
2.	What was the result of operations for each of the said divisions in 1919 and 1920 on account of
(a)	operation expenses;
(b)	gross receipts; and
(c)	surplus or deficits.
1.	Has the Government received a petition from the Montreal Progressive Club requesting the admission of Mr. L. J. Gauthier, member for St. Hyaeinthe, to the Federal Cabinet?
2.	If so, what is the intention of the Government in the matter?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Hon. Mr. REID:: .
1.	C.N.R. Western Lines: Pacific District; Western District; Prairie District; Central District; Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway.
C.N.R. Eastern Lines: Ontario Division; Montreal Division; Saguenay Division; Halifax & South Western Railway; Electric Lines.
Canadian Government Railway: Intercolonial Railway; Transcontinental Railway; Prince Edward Island Railway; Branch Lines.
2.	Railway accounting does not provide for receipts, expenses, surplus or deficits being shown by divisions.


QUEBEC CITY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the names of the officers of the Immigration Department in the city of Quebec?
2.	Is the Government aware that a young lady of England, travelling under the auspices of the Canadian Council for the Immigration of Household Workers, and introduced by J. Obed Smith, Superintendent of Immigration for Canada, was refused entrance into Canada at Quebec by the officers of the Department of Immigration in the early part of 1920?
3.	If so, what are the names and respective positions of the officers who refused her entrance?
4.	What were the reasons for said refusal?
5.	Are the said officers still in the employ of the Government?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The executive officers at Quebec in May, 1920, were: Dr. J. D. Page, Acting Dominion Immigration Agent; E. J. O'Connell, Assistant Dominion Immigration Agent; J. P. 0. Mathieu, Chief Clerk and Inspector; Jos. Huck, Inspector; E. F. Will-den, Inspector; Carroll Apter, Interpreter and Inspector.
2.	Yes. Catherine Trowers.
72i


FREDERICTON EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. COPP:: 1.	What is the area in acres of branch Experimental Farm situated at Fredericton, N.B.?
2.	How many acres of said farm are under cultivation?
3.	How many acres were under cultivation in the years 19.15, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919 respectively ?
4.	What revenue was derived from the sale of stock and products produced from said farm in each of the following years, 1915, 1916 1917 1918, 1919 and 1920?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1. 450 acres.
2.	1951 acres.
3.	1915, 1471 acres; 1916, 1511 acres; 1917, 1391 acres; 1918, 1721 acres; 1919, 1431 acres; 1920, 1951 acres. The variations in acreage are due to under-draining operations and clearing operations; also underdrained land available for cultivation in normal years could not be cropped in excessively wet years.
4.	Casual.	Refund.
1914-15 ..	. . $ 2,173.74	
1915-16 ..	.. 6,187.86	$ 1.966.2S1916-17 ..	.. 3,558.13	3,114.011917-18 ..	. . 3,334.54	2,281.131918-19 ..	. . 4,165.02	3,358.331919-20 . .	.. 11,353.10	691.63$30,772.39	$11,411.38
Total.


$ 2,173.74 8.154.14 6.672.14 5,615.67 7,523.35 12,044.73 EMPLOYEES IN PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. MURPHY:: *
What was the total number of employees of all classes in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery on the thirty-first day of December in each of the years from 1911 to 1920, inclusive?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1911, 890; 1912, 949; 1913, 1,047; 1914, 1,106; 1915, 1,160; 1916, 1,240; 1917, 1,306; 1918, 1,169; 1919, 1,131; 1920, 703.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BOARD
Mr. KENNEDY (Essex):: 1.	What are. the names of the gentlemen who compose the Board of Management of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What is the salary of each, and what amount did each receive as expenses during 'the past year?
3.	Are any of these gentlemen also directors
of joint stock companies doing business in Canada?
4.	If so, of what company or companies are they respectively directors?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	D. B. Hanna, A. J. Mitchell, R. T. Riley, R. Hobson, Major G. A. Bell, Sir Hormidas Laporte, Col. Thomas Cantley, A. P. Barnhill, E. R. Wood.
2.	Director's fees, $2,000 each, and travelling expenses to and from their homes.
3.	The Government has no information.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-THEFT OF LIQUOR
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a theft of liquor was made at the station of Baie St. Paul on the line of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway in the month of January last?
2.	Was a constable of the Canadian National Railway sent there to hold an investigation regarding the said theft? If so, what was his name?
3.	Has a report been made by the said officer?
4.	If so, will the Government produce same?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


CAMP GROUNDS, FARNHAM, QUE.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What have been the receipts and expenditures on the camp grounds at Farnham, Que., per annum, for the last five years?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government .to retain this property?
3.	If not, when will it be sold and will it be' sold en bloc or divided?
4.	Who is the superintendent of this property, and what remuneration does he receive?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Receipts. Standing hay crop: 1916, $65; 1917, $60; 1918, $50; 1919, $40; 1920, $45; total receipts, $260. Expenditure- 1916, salary of caretaker, J. Fontaine, $456.25, nails, lumber, etc., for repairs, $78.90, $535.15; 1917, salary of caretaker, $456.25, nails, lumber, etc., for repairs, $40.33, $496.58; 1918, salary of caretaker, $456.25, nails, lumber, etc., for ditching, $64.80, $521.05; 1919, salary of caretaker, $456.25, nails, lumber and painting, $247.74,

$703.99; 1920, salary of caretaker, $456.25, civil labour and transportation of stores to Ottawa and St. Johns, $172.10, $628.35; total expenditure, $2,885.12.
2	and 3. No, the Government is considering the sale of this property at the earliesi possible date.
4.	Caretaker, J. Fontaine, $1.25 per diem


CENSUS COMMISSIONER, MISSISQUOI
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Who has been appointed Census Commissioner for the county of Missisquoi?
2.	Who appointed him and on whose recommendation was he appointed?
3.	When will the enumerators be appointed?


Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Thomas H-. Pickel, Cowansville, Que.
2.	He was appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
3.	In May next.


GRAND TRUNK OPERATING CHARGES, 1920
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	Did the Grand Trunk Railway meet its operating charges in 1920?
2.	If not, what was the operating deficit?
3.	What were the fixed charges of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1920?
4.	Were these paid?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	From information received from Grand Trunk Railway on 19th inst., fixed charges, including interest on guaranteed stock, were $14,025,637.07.
4.	Yes; approximately $7,574,982.43 by Grand Trunk out of operating surplus and other net income; and $6,450,654.64, the amount of net loss, by funds advanced by the Government.


FOREIGN DECORATIONS TO CANADIANS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is the Canadian Government aware that representations have been made to the French Government asking that they refrain from awarding any decorations to Canadians?
2.	Has the Canadian Government been informed by the Imperial Government or from other sources that such representations have been made?
3.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Government to intervene in such cases?
4.	Has the Canadian Government been informed as to whether like representations have been made by the Imperial Government to governments other than of France?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No case for intervention has arisen, but the Government intends to carry out the

recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee adopted by the House of Commons on May 22nd, 1919.
4.	On October 18, 1919, the Canadian Government advised the British Government that in view of the address of the House of Commons to His Majesty the Canadian Government were precluded from giving any expression of approval of the desire of the Italian Government to confer honours' on certain Canadians, and on November 1, 1919, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accordingly advised the Italian Ambassador in London in this sense.


CUSTOMS-FOREIGN MONETARY STANDARDS
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	At what date during the year 1920 did the Government change the method of calculating the value of the franc, lire, etc., for duty purposes?
2.	Were any refunds made to importers who bv reason of the former system had made payments of duty in excess of the amounts they would have paid had the duty been levied in the manner last adopted?
3.	Who were these' importers?
4.	What were their addresses and what were the amounts so refunded to each?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	22 July, 1920.
2.	No refunds made' to importers in respect of goods entered for duty prior to 22nd July, 1920.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.


EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEEN FUNDS
*Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Is the Government aware that in England charges have been publicly made regarding the misappropriation of funds in connection with the Expeditionary Force Canteens surplus?
2.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the present Government to secure payment of Canada's share of the said surplus?
3.	Are the returned soldiers to benefit in any way out of Canada's share in the said surplus when it is paid? If not, to what purpose will the moneys be applied?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	No information.
2.	Certain monies have already been received, and are at present on deposit in a Special Trust Accoulnt with the Receiver General.
The Imperial Authorities are at present engaged in winding up the affairs of the Expeditionary Force Canteens.
Canada's interests are being looked after by the High Commissioner for Canada, Sir George Perley.
3.	The question of the distribution of this money has been submitted to the Special Committee on Pensions, appointed
during the present session, for consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
Mr. EULER:: 1.	Was the statement submitted to Parliament on March 17 by the Minister of Railways with regard to the losses and operation of the National Railways, the finding of an independent audit by a responsible auditor?
2.	If so, what is the name of such auditor?
3.	If the statement was not so audited, was it prepared by the regular officials or accountants of the National Railways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The statements were prepared by the regular officials of the railways from the accounts of the railways which, as regards the Canadian Northern, had been audited by the firm of George A. Touche & Co., chartered accountants and auditors, Toronto, and, as regards Grand Trunk Pacific, by Marwick Mitchell & Company, Montreal. The accounts in connection with the Canadian Government lines are subject to the usual audit of the Auditor General's staff.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
Mr. W. J. TOBIN


Mr. REDMAN:: 1.	Has W. J. Tobin or J. Tobin, been employed by the Department of Soldiers' Civil-Reestablishment or by the Soldier Settlement Board or any other department of the Federal Government?
2.	If so, between what dates was he so employed ?
3. Was he at any time employed by either body at the city of Edmonton? If so, under what circumstances and between what dates?
4.	Was he granted leave of absence? If so, between what dates and under what circumstances?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes; by the Soldier Settlement Board.
2.	From September 15th, 1919, to February 11th, 1921, inclusive.
3.	Not by the Soldier Settlement Board.
4.	Yes. May 7 to 19 inclusive, 1920, special leave to go to Halifax, N.S., on account of his father being injured in street railway accident; August 16 to 28 inclusive, 1920, annual leave; February 7 to 11 inclusive, 1921, annual leave.


STIKINE AND DEASE RIVERS (
*Mr. PECK:: 1.	Did two employees of the Public Works Department proceed up the Stikine River and down the Dease River to the lower post on the Liard last summer?
2.	If so, what was the expense of this trip, including wages of these employees during the period they were engaged in same?
3.	For what purpose was the trip made?
4.	Was the purpose accomplished?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$1,065.08.
3.	Reconnaissance was made and data secured as to requirements to improve the waterway for the handling of supplies, etc., to the mining district north of Dease Lake.
4.	A report has been submitted and is receiving the consideration of the Department.


ANTELOPE IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1. Did the Government establish a park as' a preserve for antelope In Western Canada?
.	2. If so, where is it located?
3.	How many antelope are within its bounds at present?
4.	Has the Government any information as ro the number of antelope in Western Canada?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	A reserve of 5,000 acres was established in 1915 which it is intended to create a National Park.
2.	Near Nemiskam, Alberta, in Township 7, Ranges 9 and 10, west of 4th meridian.
3.	Approximately 100.
4.	No definite information but estimated between 800 and 900.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. PELLETIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, memoranda in the hands of the Minister of Public Works, Officials of the Public Works, Superintendent of Engineering Department in and for the Province of Quebec, Mr. A. R. Decarie and Engineering Department at Ottawa pertaining to and regarding the construction, repairs or improvements at the following named harbours: St. TJlric, Matane, Ste. Felicite, Ruisseau & Loutre, Mfichins, all in Matane County, from January, 1918, to date.


François Jean Pelletier: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, telegrams, reports exchanged between any member of the Government and the Intercolonial Railway and Canadian National Railways Officials regarding the enquiry held at Sayabec, Matane County, P.Q., on the 17th day of June, 1920, by Mr. T. J. Tingley, District Special Agent, Canadian National Railways, and the dismissal of Mr. Edmond Banville, Station Agent at above named place.


Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of letters, telegrams addressed to the Government by any person from the Province of Quebec who has applied for a position of trustee, under the Bankruptcy Act, together with copies of all letters or telegrams purporting to recommend any person to such positions.


Mr. GERVAIS:: For a copy of the report of the inquiry held by Mr. Wiallard at Sorel and Montreal (Decem-

ber and January) concerning certain charges against the Government shipyards administra tion at Sorel.


Mr. MOLLOY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence between the Dominion Government or any member thereof and the Government of Ontario or any member thereof, regarding Bill No. 23 (Letter D of the Senate), intituled: "An Act respecting the Lake of the Woods Control Board." or the subject matter thereof.


Mr. McCOIG:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, telegrams, reports or other papers, exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada or any of his Ministers and the Premier of British Columbia or any of his Ministers, with reference to the power of the province of British Columbia, under existing Dominion Legislation, tc control the importation of liquor into that province.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- SULLY, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order (Mr. Gauvreau).
For a copy of all letters, correspondence, petitions, financial statements and all other documents, exchanged between the settlers of Sully and along the National Transcontinental in the county of Temiscouata, and the Superintendent of the Government Railways in connection with the erection of a station at Sully, Quebec.
Arthur Meighen: I do not know just what is meant by this correspondence between certain parties and the superintendent of the Government railways. I do not know whether the official meant in this Order is an officer of the National Railways. I think the motion had better stand.
Motion stands.


THE HOUSING PROBLEM. PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL HOUSING BOARD
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the general interest of the people of Canada will be served by making it possible for every industrious, frugal and thrifty citizen to become the owner in fee simple of a house and lot; that the Government of Canada should grant assistance to make that possible; and to that end, the sum of ten million' dollars should be appropriated annually for a period of five years to buy land and build houses for men of good character who can make a small initial payment and undertake to liquidate the indebtedness incurred by monthly instalments as may be agreed upon; that a Federal Housing Board be appointed to carry out the plan which, for the first year-or such longer period as in the opinion of the Governor General in Council may be desirable-shall be confined to men who have served overseas.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the hon. member proceeds, Mr. Speaker, I beg to raise a point of order. Although I should be very glad to hear the arguments which the hon. member might advance, yet I should like to have a ruling of the Chair on the motion as it reads, calling as it does for the expenditure of public moneys. I desire to know what the ruling of the Chair is on that question.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I may be permitted
to say a word or two on the point of order. This is a general resolution which undoubtedly involves the spending of money, but in this respect it differs from the resolution to which I took exception the other day, moved by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell). I am not going to argue that this resolution is in order, but I would point out that it might be held to be in order, while the other was ruled out of order, for a reason which I shall now advance. There is nothing in this resolution which, if the House saw fit to pass it, would involve a charge at any definite time upon the public treasury. The resolution of the hon. member for Nelson, however, had it carried, would have involved a charge this year on the public treasury. I was not in the House when your Honour's decision was given on that resolution, but it would seem to me that any resolution so reading should be held to be without the powers of a private member of the House. The present resolution is different and I do not wish to apply my argument thereto, but in my judgment it is well worthy of consideration whether it is not also beyond the competence of a private member.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The point of order
raises a question which involves a principle affecting to a rather marked degree the rights of private members of the House. In earlier years the practice was to exclude resolutions of this character as being money resolutions, and therefore not competent to be moved by private members. However, in recent years the tendency has grown up to relax the rule and to regard these resolutions, although in their own terms intending to involve the expenditure of money, as being merely an expression of opinion on the part of the hon. member who moves them, or of the House of Commons if the resolution should be adopted. Perhaps I should say also that as far as I can gather the spirit which has prompted speakers heretofore to not regard these resolutions as money resolutions in the
sense that they ought not to be adopted is, that they were to be deemed merely an expression of opinion, and that the Government was not ipso facto to be bound to implement the expression of opinion contained in the resolution. In other words the constitutional rule and duty of the Government to be responsible for initiating financial legislation was not to be impaired in any degree.
As I said the other day my feeling with respect to such resolutions is this: that it seems to be in the highest degree desirable that hon. members should have as much latitude as possible to discuss all manner of questions affecting the public welfare, and that they ought not to be restricted by the application of the rigorous letter of the law. My own tendency is to so interpret the rules of the House as to always permit the widest possible measure of discussion. I shall not give a final opinion at present upon this resolution but will take further opportunity of looking into the matter. I have already indicated what my own view at the moment is, having regard to pi'evious decisions, having regard to previous acts of this House, and having regard to the decision I gave a few days ago -which I may say I found out afterwards was confirmed absolutely by a considered opinion given by Mr. Speaker Sproule in this House a very few years ago, and I may add in connection therewith that it was a judgment reversing a decision of his own of the day before so that it was his matured opinion. At that time he restored to the Order Paper a resolution which on the previous day he had ruled out, a resolution which in its terms called for the expenditure of public money on the part of this House. As at present advised I am inclined therefore to regard this motion as being in order, but I shall take the question into consideration and acquaint the House with my decision in due course.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of questioning your ruling. On the contrary what your Honour has just stated seems to be most reasonable-that private members should have a right to express a pious opinion about public matters. In the present instance, however, my hon. friend (Mr. Hoc-ken) seems to be going so much against the rules of the House-because he mentions in his resolution the desirability of making an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for a period of five years-that I would suggest to him that if he were to amend the resolution by avoiding the men-

tion of that sum of money I think there would be no question as to its being in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The suggestion of the hon. member for Maisonneuve is certainly an admirable one. If it meets with the wishes of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), I am sure no question will arise with respect to the resolution under the rules of the House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, I am quite content to amend the resolution in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). I do not think, and I did not think, that I could do much more at this time than ventilate this question in the House. The resolution expresses an opinion that I have had for many years; and the more deeply I have studied this question, the more convinced I have become that the proposal to place every head of a household in this country in possession of his own house and lot is good, sound public policy. I scarcely expected that the Government would have $10,000,000 to appropriate off hand for this purpose, and perhaps I may be accused of having a good deal of assurance in presenting such a suggestion; but I feel satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that that amount of money could not be expended by the Government to better advantage than in the way that I suggest, and I will at least endeavour to show why a broad policy on this question should be adopted.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, the accepted function of a government was to build railways in the West, and wharves in the Maritime Provinces, and, occasionally an armoury building in the province of Ontario. Such will always be an important part of national administration. As the country develops construction must proceed, and I am not arguing that there should be any cessation of expenditures that are necessary for such purposes. But we have reached a time in the history of the world when the common people look for something more from the Government than the construction of roads and public buildings. Some people say that the war has brought this about. My judgment is that it was coming years before the war; it may have been accelerated by the great conflict but was not caused by it. Slowly, during the past generations, a conviction has been growing in the minds of the common people that the needs of the masses demand more attention from those who administer the affairs of the nation. The first manifestation of this is to be found in muni-

cipal government, as far as my experience goes. Fifteen years ago there was a great awakening, Mr. Speaker, among the thoughtful men and women as to the responsibility upon the part of government for the amelioration of the conditions of life among the least fortunate portion of the community. We find this exhibited in the new method adopted in all progressive states and provinces for the treatment of those who have been incarcerated in prisons for violations, of the law. Not so long ago the one idea in handling criminals was their punishment; to-day the dominant idea in dealing with them is to bring about their reformation. I mention this as one of the outstanding developments of a more intelligent study of human needs that distinguishes this generation. I might follov) it in many directions, because the same spirit is displayed in dealing with defectives of all kinds, and in providng for those who lack opportunities for self-development, physically, mentally and morally. The underlying motive of all this is the betterment of the people

the betterment of the common people, and by that term I mean the great majority of our population who must always be employed as wage earners. Those who have the organizing ability and business capacity to become employers do not need financial assistance from the Government to provide the ordinary comforts of life or to make provision for old age. In every country, however, these constitute but a fraction of the total population; the majority will always be in the ranks of the artisans, labourers, and clerks. It is the welfare, of this large class of citizens on whose behalf I am trying to say a word to-day. They are not paupers, they are not looking for charity; but in my judgment they have a right to expect from the Government such reasonable asistance as will enable them to properly organize their homes and so secure for their children places to which they can look back in later years with happy recollections.
There are many thousands of industrious citizens in this country who have not been able to acquire owership of even the most modest house and lot. They have striven to educate their children and to maintain their families in a state of decent comfort, and this has absorbed their entire earnings and deprived them of the opportunity of saving enough to purchase homes. On the other hand, Sir, it is true that there are many thousands who, by sacrifices, known only to themselves, have secured a start in this direction and by slow degrees have extin-

guished the mortgages they had to assume and carry over a period of years. This class of people are the very salt of the earth. They have uncomplainingly and, as a rule, cheerfully, submitted to domestic economies that no man or family makes from choice; they have submitted to those economies with their eyes on the future.
With every year that passes it becomes more difficult for a man to make such a start. In most of our cities and towns the price of house property has advanced to such a point that the initial payment necessarily demanded by builders is beyond the capacity of the average workman. Consequently the difficulties have increased -so enormously that the need of
4	p.m. assistance is greater now than at any time in the past. Moreover, the cessation of building operations during the war has left this country with a shortage of homes, estimated by officials of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada at between 45,000 and 50,000 houses. The result is that two or three families are compelled to live in one house which was designed to accommodate one small family.
It must be apparent to hon. members that heroic measures are justified to relieve such a situation. It is that kind of thing, Sir, that leads to dissatisfaction, intensifies unrest, and awakens in the individual a sense of injustice, making him an easy prey for radical and revolutionary agitators. An industrious man with a family crowded into inadequate space becomes a disheartened and careless citizen. Every man needs some incentive to inspire him to make the best of his opportunities and to properly develop his talents, but such personal development is impossible without wholesome and happy home surroundings, and unfortunately these cannot be obtained by many thousands of artisans in the towns and cities of this country. Let such conditions prevail over an extended period, and we will establish here some of the most deplorable features characteristic- of urban life in Europe. Those are the conditions that breed communism and anarchism; whereas the individual home where one family can live in privacy with a reasonable degree of comfort inevitably produces a better type of parent and a better type of child. So I take the ground, Sir, that all governments should be concerned with the material and moral welfare of those they govern.
The problem of housing has become so acute that the need for extraordinary measures must be apparent to every
observant person. As I have already stated, officials of the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada have declared that there is a shortage of 45,000 houses. We find that the situation has become a matter of deep concern to the provincial legislatures, for I see by the press that legislation to place restrictions upon landlords has been suggested in the Legislature of Quebec, while in the province of Ontario the exorbitant rents charged by landlords, due entirely to the shortage of houses, has led the Government of that province to introduce a bill to establish a fair-rent court. This surely is an extraordinary measure and one which a few years ago no one would have dreamt of suggesting.
Addressing the Town Planning Convention at Toronto on February 17 last, Archbishop McNeil, said;
There are few of the six-roomed houses in Toronto that have not got two families in them, and sometimes lodgers besides.
Last year we had 7,784 marriages in Toronto, and at least 5,000 houses at reasonably low prices were called for. How many such houses were erected? Only 61. And we find that 116 houses were pulled down during the year, while 79 dwellings were converted into business places. So, you see, we have been progressing backwards.
I think I need go no further in elaboration of my argument of the necessity for a vigorous programme of house building in our towns and cities. The condition is so obtrusive that it is scarcely possible for any person to be ignorant of it.
It will no doubt be argued that the responsibility for improving housing conditions rests with the provincial governments. I admit the force of this argument, but it seems to me that this Parliament, being the chief legislative authority in the Dominion, might well undertake, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal authorities, a programme that would relieve conditions which are so unsatisfactory and which must tend towards the degeneration of our people. I appreciate what this Parliament has done in appropriating $25,000,000, of which $10,000,000 has been expended through the provincial authorites. However, that does not seem to me to go far enough. While the British North America Act may impose upon the provinces the responsibility of settling social questions of this kind, I do not think that that entirely absolves this Parliament of responsibility to take cognizance of, and to provide remedies for, conditions of so unsatisfactory a nature.
The germ of my proposal in this resolution is not to provide any temporary expedient, but rather to create a permanent

body that would constantly be available to prevent the intensification of this problem and to work in the direction of assuring to every man an opportunity to acquire his own home, providing he will make any real effort himself. This is not socialism, Mr. Speaker, it is individualism. It is not giving our people something for nothing. It is putting them in a position where they would be encouraged to exercise thrift, to develop industrious habits and thus steadily to liquidate the indebtedness that they must incur to become their own landlords.
The possession of real estate, no matter how small a portion, has a peculiar effect upon a man, and it is an effect that is shared by his family. It raises his standing in the community. It gives him a sense of dignity. That is one of the strongest incentives to self-development that any person can have. He becomes deeply interested in the good government of his municipality because he is a direct taxpayer, and this interest in municipal affairs inevitably leads to closer study of all other branches of government that we have. He follows the course of political discussions. He applies more intelligent methods in reaching dis decisions as to his political future. He feels himself to be an important unit in the body politic. Who can estimate the value to the country of converting the easygoing, rent-paying artisan into an earnest, property-owning citizen? The effort to acquire a home in this way arouses in the average man an ambition to develop every talent that he possesses. We have all through this country manufacturers and employers of labour who owe their present position in business to the thrifty habits acquired by the purchase of a home in their early years. It develops all that is best in a man, because he is not actuated by purely selfish motives; the welfare of his wife and family is the dominant idea in his mind. Thus the finer impulses of his nature are stimulated; he takes a pride in his little property because it is his, no matter how large the mortgage may be. A spirit of emulation causes him to employ his spare hours in making improvements and keeping his little property in the best condition he can. And, Sir, the effect upon his family is proportionate to that upon himself. His wife is as deeply interested in and is as proud of her ownership as her husband. Upon her falls a great deal of the necessity for thrift, and she benefits in every way by the responsibilities which she carries in common with her husband. The children in such a home are necessarily taught industrious and frugal habits, and

such teaching in childhood has its effect throughout life. The very obligations assumed by the parent are shared unconsciously by the children; at a tender age they learn to understand the value of economy, and ultimately see its reward in the liquidation of the indebtedness on their home and the better conditions under which they live. These things cannot be taught in school; it is only by the everyday experiences in the home that a child can be made to understand that self-denial in the small things is necessary for the accomplishment of a purpose which makes for the permanent welfare of the family. Such lessons as forming a part of the child's education should not be lightly regarded. So that for the man, for the woman, and for the child there is educational and moral value and the development of civic virtue in the ownership of a home.
Contrast the conditions outlined by Archbishop McNeil, where two or more families live in a six-roomed house, with the occupancy of a house by one family. A whole speech might be made on this phase of the housing problem. It is essential to the proper care and training of children that there should be privacy in the domestic circle. That makes for obedience to parental authority; it enables parents to bring up their children in their own way and without the dangers through associations beyond their control. The house with two or three families in it can never be dignified by the name of home. It may be a place in which to sleep, but all the wholesome influence of home that men cherish throughout their lives and which restrain them from excesses of all kinds are absent from those habitations where two or three families are herded together in six rooms. We make complaints about the inefficiency of the churches, and then we allow conditions to be created that render all the wishes of religious teachers to care for the spiritual welfare of the people difficult if not impossible of accomplishment.
In my judgment, Sir, the time has come when the state must do all that it reasonably can to restore the home to the place of power and influence which it ought to occupy and which in times past it did occupy; for to its occupancy of that place we are indebted to-day for the morality of our people and the stability of our institutions. We are now going through a crisis in this world as the aftermath of the great war, but it is a crisis that never would have arisen, I venture to say, if the common people of all the civilized nations had

been in possession of their own property. Ownership of real estate makes a man a steadier citizen. Having made the sacrifices inseparable from the acquisition of a home his whole interest lies in maintaining it. He is not fuel for agitators or revolutionists; on the contrary, he is an impediment to the agitator; he is the most desirable force in the country for orderly government and constitutional procedure. I take an ilustration from my own city, Sir, a community of half a million people. The extremes of wealth and poverty are to be found there, in a form quite as acute as in any city of the Dominion. Looking at it upon the surface, it would seem to be fertile ground for communist activity, but it passed safely through that period of unrest which affected similar communities in this country more seriously. What is the explanation, Mr. Speaker? It lies in the fact that forty-seven and one-half per cent of the houses in Toronto are occupied by their owners. Roughly speaking, one-half of our population have a deep sense of responsibility for good gevernment and the maintenance of order, to a degree that would not be possible if they had not been influenced by the possession of small properties which to them are as great as the plants of the wealthiest manufacturers. Is it not worth while, Mr. Speaker, for this Parliament to take cognizance of such a situation, and even to take extraordinary measures to bring about, by degrees, that state of affairs in which every man will have the same incentive to be an industrious and thrifty citizens? These periods of unrest will recur, we have not seen the last of them in Canada; and I submit that the best means that can be adopted to prepare to deal with such crisis is to develop to the highest degree that we can those qualities that make for sobriety of temperament, steady observance of the law, and intelligent co-operation for personal and community improvement.
We have been fortunate in this country in that we have so few large cities, and so many cities of from ten to thirty thousand population. I wish that the two or three large cities we have could be reduced one-half in population, and that the other half of their population could be spread throughout the smaller communities. I am sure that this would produce a much more wholesome state of affairs. My own province of Ontario is the best example that we have of the existence of few large cities. There are in that province scores of flourishing communities of a population
of from ten to thiry thousand, where workmen have their half-acre to cultivate and their own little cottage,where contentment and ideal domestic conditions prevail. There are cities like Kitchener, Guelph, Stratford, St. Thomas, and a score of others that ilustrate the point I am trying to make. In these places strikes are almost unknown, for employer and employee live together in harmonious relations, and in the last analysis, Mr. Speaker, It will be found that this state of industrial harmony can be traced to the ownership by the operatives in the factories of their own homes. They are better workmen because they are contented with the conditions under which they live, the most important factor of which is domestic felicity. They are good neighbors to one another because of the influence of happy homes. Let illness overtake one family in such a community as I am trying to describe, and from all sides will come assistance and sympathy and helpfulness, because they have been welded into one great family by long associations and intimate relationship.
Nor can we overlook the importance of a permanent abode in the life of a man and his family. Those who are at the mercy of landlords may live a year in one place and a year in another. Continual changes of residence are costly to the family; they lessen the ability of parents to own their own property, while they have a sad effect upon the children.
The ownership of a house and lot is insurance against unemployment and old age. In great Britain large sums of money are paid out in old age pensions and unemployment doles and there are advocates of like measures in this country. I do not entirely disagree with their view, but I look upon such payments as a form of charity that self-respecting men must accept with repugnance. It is better for the people, and for the State, to preserve the finer sensibilities of our citizens by putting them in a position to meet such emergencies by their own efforts. One who has not rent to pay monthly can get through a period of unemployment much more easily than one who must raise a definite amount for a landlord as the months roll by. The payment of rent has been the most difficult feature of the unemployment situation with which we have had to deal in our city during the last few months. The fear of eviction, added to the anxiety of enforced idleness, has intensified the distress of many a family. With that obligation eliminated, it is astonishing how

long a family can carry on with small means, and in most cases it is possible to get through several months of unemployment. Unemployment usually occurs in the fall and winter months when the need of shelter is imperative. As spring opens up in this country, work is resumed in many lines in which it is impossible during the rigorous winter season, so that if we could put the masses of our people in a position to tide over the few months of unemployment, which will always be an inevitable feature of Canadian life, we would accomplish a great deal for the wage earner.
Ownership of a home would also act as a provision for old age, and it would be more effective provision than the small dole which is the best any country can pay to the aged and infirm. Given a home in which to live, an ohl couple will require but little additional assistance to maintain them. That little, in nearly every instance, could be provided by the children who might share the home belonging to their aged parents. The amount which they would pay in rent would meet this obligation; or if the children have homes of their own, the rent their parents could receive from their own home

and there will always be a renting class-would be sufficient for the modest needs of the parents, so that the possession of house property, of a home, by a man and his wife, forms, to my mind, the most self-respecting provision that can be made for unemployment or old age.
An appropriation provided for this purpose would be, not an expenditure, but an investment, and one more certain of return than the vast sums which we are providing for the railways. The experience of loan companies in Ontario is that not one per cent of men who purchase homes on the instalment plan fail in meeting their obligations. Their first care is to meet the interest and principal payments, and they submit to economies of the most drastic kind when that is necessary to protect their little properties. Therefore, it must be conceded that there would be no losses to the treasury from such an undertaking.
I have proposed in the resolution that returned soldiers should have the preference in the expenditure of moneys appropriated for such a purpose. We owe that to them at least; we owe to the returned soldiers a great deal more than we ever can pay; many of them have come back and have not been able to settle down in homes and are still at the

mercy of landlords. The services that they rendered to us overseas require us to see that, whether they are living in the country or in the city, unusual measures are taken to bring about their re-establishment both in their occupation and in all the other phases of civil life. In fact, this is part of the re-establishment of the returned men. Those who live in the cities receive their gratuities, those who are able to go on to the farm receive a good deal more; and I think something more might be done than has been done in the way of re-establishment for soldiers having their domiciles in the cities or the country. This is one way that would prove effective and, I think, desirable, from their standpoint.
Perhaps the greatest criticism that can be brought against a proposal of this kind is: How would the fund be administered? The resolution suggests the creation of a Housing Board. My idea is that that should be composed of permanent officials, at least one of whom should be from the Department of Public Works, and that that Housing Board could, on behalf of the Government, enter into arrangements with loan companies now in existence and doing business in the Dominion of Canad-a. Those loans companies have had long and successful experience in conducting exactly this kind of transaction, and I have no doubt that arrangements could be made with such companies to take this money and lend it cut under their direction, control and responsibility. We would then have a responsible local body, assuring to the purchaser of a home that it would he properly built; that when a contract was let to a builder, there would be such inspection as would ensure that all the specifications would properly be carried out. The money would not be paid to the builder except in proportion as the work went on, and the great profits made by speculative builders would be eliminated. At the present time the speculative builder buys a lot; he puts up two or three houses; he puts what money he has into them; he borrows what the loan company will lend on them, and then when he sells them he takes second mortgages for all he can get. Under the plan I suggest, the prospective house owner would apply to the loan company; he would have the benefit of the advice of that company; and the profit of the speculative builder-and in many cases that is a considerable item-would

be saved to him. Another feature that is important in a plan of this kind is the collection of periodical instalments. If a Government board undertook to do that work, it would have grave difficulties, but that woi'k can be done through loan companies which would be financially interested, both in the building and in the collection of the accounts, and which would give the business the personal attention of a large and experienced staff. In that way the borrower would not be liable to the Government and could not come making a poor mouth; he would be liable to and would be required to deal with a business organization in a business way.
The reason why so many people desiring homes are unable to get them is that they must be prepared to pay down a sum equal to at least 40 per cent of the value of the property. Loan companies will lend about 60 per cent as a maximum. My proposition would be that a man should be able to get a home if he can pay down 10 per cent. If the Government were so deeply interested in the matter as to provide money, they could stand behind the loan company to the extent of 30 per cent. The man buying the house would be required to pay down at least $300 or $400-let us say $300, for the sake of illustration-on a $3,000 house. The Government would stand behind 30 per cent of the remainder, and the other 60 per cent the loan company would stand behind. It is certain that if we do not make it easier in the future than it has been in the past for men to own their own homes, the housing shortage will not only continue but will be aggravated, and conditions that are so bad now will become very much worse with almost every year that passes.


Mr. GEORGE BOYCE:: Did my hon.
friend ever know a person who got out of the hands of a loan company after getting into them?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have known a great
many people who have got into the hands of a loan company and got out satisfactorily. I got out myself once; that is the best answer I can give my hon. friend. I thought I had cleared up that point when I said that not one per cent of the people who buy houses from loan companies fail in meeting their obligations. That looks as though they got out and got out quite satisfactorily.
Under this plan it would be possible for groups of workmen to get together who have not the capital to form companies
of their own, and then take from the loan companies contracts to build these houses. I think if that were done you would get more efficiency from the builders than you have been getting in the past. During the past year brick layers were laying 700 to 800 bricks a day, and in some cases down to as low as 500. But if two or three bricklayers had a contract to put up a brick house they would lay from 1,500 to 1.800 bricks a day. As a matter of fact, on the new King Edward Hotel being built in the city of Toronto they laid 1,400 bricks a day this winter, while last summer they were laying only 600 to 700. I think if you got a group of carpenters, bricklayers and painters to co-operate, drawing their money as the work went on just as they would their wages, you would get a standard of efficiency in house building that has not been possible in the past and is not possible under any other conditions.
My idea is that the Housing Board would prepare a certain number of plans of six-roomed houses, and perhaps five-roomed, and even up to eight-roomed houses. These plans could be accepted and materials standardized. I think in the standardization of materials for the construction of such houses, and perhaps the purchase on the credit of the Housing Board of large quantities of such materials, enormous savings could be made. Each man building a house would be able to get his materials, or the greater part of them, through this Housing Board and would thereby effect a . very substantial saving- and economy is an essential feature of a programme like this.
I have not attempted to work out all the details, Mr. Speaker, because that can only be done from experience. I do not think any man could to-day lay down a plan that would not require considerable adjustment in future, but experience will enable us to make those adjustments. The point I want to lay before the House is that we are faced with a tremendous need in this country, and it is a need which if not filled will make for more difficult, and perhaps disastrous, conditions in the country. On the other hand, if the need is met and filled, we shall have entirely the opposite condition. Shall we attempt to solye this matter as a great social problem, or shall we say it is beyond our power? To say the latter would be, to my mind, the counsel of timidity. There are obstacles, of course, in the way of carrying out such a proposition, but we are here to overcome such obstacles. We are elected to look after thr welfare of the people of this country* ar.d

if we are incompetent to overcome these obstacles, that should only be decided after we have made an earnest attempt to find a>
solution. What is needed, Sir, is vision and courage. I believe that the bonds for such a purpose as I suggest would be taken up by our own people, and the money to meet the interest would be provided year after year as the work went on. I know there is a disposition not to increase the debt of this country, but this is not a debt, it is an investment. It is a form of social legislation that is already being practiced in some places where conditions have been allowed to grow up that made legislation absolutely imperative. The British government has carried out large housing schemes. Why? Because they had to, because conditions got so bad there was nothing else for them to do. If they had started fifty or a hundred years before living conditions in Great Britain would be very much better than they are to-day; and if we go on another forty or fifty years as we are doing, and the Government does not take any cognizance of the difficulties of the average workman and artisan of the country, conditions will grow up in our great cities similar to those in the great cities of other countries. To my mind that would be deplorable.
I do not think the need can be met by private capital. I think that has been demonstrated by our experience of the last year or two. To get a real solution there must be governmental assistance. So, in view of the urgency of the need, and of the enormous benefit that would accrue from the successful carrying out of the idea, I believe this is a matter that should enlist the sympathetic consideration of the Government, and one that warrants unusual methods on the part of this Parliament.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in his remarks on the benefit to citizenship that comes from men owning their own homes. No better illustration of that could be given than conditions in the smaller cities and towns throughout the country, to which he pointed, where nearly all the working men own their property. That is the ideal situation for the community, because it makes these people take an interest in all that goes on in the community, and at the same time take an interest in their country. These men are very intelligent voters. There are seldom any strikes or troubles between labour and capital in the smaller cities and towns of this country. These men, however, in the

past have been able, without any assistance from the Government, to acquire their property, and in a great many instances have been able to pay for it, either through private loans or through loan companies or corporations of that kind. No matter how they acquired their property, they have acquired it. They have saved, and in so doing have shown their character. They have been able to buy their own properties and in a great many cases they live just as comfortably as anybody else in the land. I perfectly agree with all my hon. friend has said along that line. It would be a very desirable thing if we could get everybody in this country to own their own homes, and to take an interest not only in their local community but in the country at large. But he proposes that the Dominion Government should go into the loaning business. Now, I da not agree with my hon. friend when he says that where three families live in a six-roomed house, that is perhaps a good place in which even to sleep. I think the opposite. I do agree, however, with his statement that the possession of real estate has considerable effect on a man. I have experienced the truth of that several times, but the effect is perhaps not the same as that implied by my hon. friend. The effect has been a very undesirable one [DOT] sometimes, so far as I am concerned.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You had too much of it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I had too much of the
kind. This question Mr. Speaker, came up before the Re-establishment Committee in the fall of 1919, and I think it is one that should go to the Re-establishment Board which is operating now. It came up before them and they submitted it to the Re-establishment Committee of this House, who considered it very carefully and reported against it because they thought that it was too dangerous an experiment for the Dominion Government to undertake. I should like to see every man own his own property, as my hon. friend suggests. He pictures the very happy condition that would exist if that were the case, and I agree absolutely with all that. But as to the Dominion Government undertaking to go into the loaning business, my hon. friend knows, as does everyone in this House, that there seems to be a peculiar feeling throughout the country that when any moneys can be got from the Government it does not matter very much whether they are repaid or not. For that reason I cannot share his confidence that the Government would not lose money by the proposal he makes. A few years ago, if I mistake not, we

passed a Bill in this House, authorizing the loan of $25,000,000, guaranteed by the provinces. I understand that most of the provinces have not availed themselves of that offer, although Ontario has to a certain extent; and I know that in some places in that province the scheme will entail a great deal of loss, because they are building houses which they cannot sell for anything like what it cost to put them up. I know whereof I speak, at least in one instance. In my judgment, while the hon. member who introduced the resolution is perfectly right in all he set forth this afternoon as to the desirability of people owning their own property, and on that account taking an interest in the country, and so forth, if there is any one outside of the corporations or private individuals who is going to lend money it ought to be the municipality. The municipalities have the means of knowing exactly the character of the borrower, and in the loaning of money, years of experience have taught me that a great deal more depends upon the character of the indivadual who borrows money then frequently upon the nature of the security itself. You can safely loan money to certain people with very little security, while you cannot loan it to others who offer what would apparently be good security, because, as we all know, securities depreciate very much sometimes. I have known them to go down fifty per cent in the course of ten years. And especially do securities in housing depreciate very materially through lack of care taken of the property. Some people take such excellent care of their property that after they have occupied it ten or fifteen, or even twenty years, it is in as good condition as it was when built, if not better. On the other hand, occupied by some other people, it would not, after such a period, be worth twenty-five per cent of what it originally cost. Let me repeat, that if there is any one going into the loaning business it should be the municipalities, for, as I say, they are able to obtain accurate knowledge as to the character of the borrower, and can judge accordingly. The municipality can lend money just as well as the Dominion Government, and they would know, by the character of the borrower, exactly whether they were running any risk in making a loan. My hon. friend suggests another commission. In my opinion, we have quite enough commissions already. I am opposed to another commission.


An hon. MEMBER:: Call it something else.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A rose by any other name-you know the rest. After all, it would be a commission, and it would have to be paid for the work it undertook. They would have to be paid by the Government, or else take their expenses and their salaries out of the people to whom the loans were made, and that would not be beneficial to the borrower. Now, I am not going to take up much more time. I must, however, reiterate that I am absolutely opposed to the Dominion Government going into the loaning business.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of saying


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) has not yet concluded his remarks.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would commend to the mover of the resolution the suggestion I offer, that the municipality should take hold of the question, if it is a pressing one, in the city of Toronto. I know that the municipality from which I come will not ask the Dominion Government to loan them money. If they think that loans should be made they will look after this themselves.
Mr. W. If. BALDWIN (Stanstead): It is not often that I agree with the mover of the resolution, but in one respect he is right- in the principle that people should own their own property. Times have changed wonderfully in my day. Forty years ago practically every one was trying to get a piece of land on which to build a home, but since that time there has been a continual exodus to the cities and now there is more land for sale and there are more deserted homes in the country than there were, say, twenty years since. People seem to want to shirk responsibility. Very many young people will spend exorbitant sums in immoderate wedding presents, and often there is more money involved in the outlay of a wedding than would buy a small farm. People do not want to shoulder the cares and responsibilities of rural life and are therefore flocking in large numbers to the cities, where there seems to be the greatest frivolity. One has only to look at the picture shows, the candy shops, and other attractions, to see the inducement that is held out for country people to come to the city. I think that the Government, instead of helping people to own their own homes in the cities, should do something to retain the rural population on our farms. Any assistance given by the Government in the way of helping people to build homes, should be

given with the distinct understanding that the occupants will be kept busy producing something or other. Everything can be said for the person who owns his own house on a plot of land, however small, from which he derives an honourable livelihood. In my opinion, the Government will have to put a tax on a good many things if they want to keep people from leaving the country and coming into already overcrowded cities. What is needed more than anything else in my section of the country just now is good roads. I made an offer, through the public press, of from $20,000 to $40,000 to the township I live in towards the construction of stone and gravel roads. I could not get them to accept my offer even though I proposed to in that way bear one-third of the cost of the entire work that needs to be done.
Now, with respect to what the Qovern-ment has done in the way of helping the returned soldier let me say that from my observation a great many soldiers who have gone upon the land have made a success of it, but still a large number of the farms that were taken up for this purpose havp been thrown back again on the hands of the Government. And I believe it can be taken for granted that in the first place the Government paid for these farms far more than they were worth; in other words many of these farms could have been bought for fifty per cent less than was paid for them had the purchase been conducted in a businesslike manner.
The principle of the resolution is in the right direction but how are you going to carry it out? If you go into the rural sections of the country you will find in every township vacant houses. Surely it is not proposed to build more houses in the cities in view of the fact that the urban centres are already full of people that cannot get work. I read a short time ago that in the Niagara district they were running the great industries there at only twenty-five to thirty per cent of their capacity. While there are vacant houses in the country districts some steps should be taken to induce people to live in those houses and cultivate the soil. While the idea of everybody in the country owning their own house is a good one, and while there is not the least doubt that in the people who own their own dwellings you have the finest force of constabulary that you can possibly have, I do not think it would be wise to embark upon such a large expenditure of public money as the resolution contemplates.

Mr. WILLIAM GARLAND McQUAR-RIE (New Westminster): I should have been much better pleased if the mover of this resolution had asked for a further grant under the scheme which the Federal Government adopted in 1918, whereby it advanced money to the provincial governments, and the provincial governments in turn advanced money to the municipalities for the purpose of making loans to soldiers to enable them to build their own homes. So far as my experience has gone that plan worked out very well indeed, and I think the dwellings which were built were very much needed. In my opinion the building of those houses was a very good thing for the returned soldier. The object of that scheme has not yet been fully attained. The conditions still exist which would warrant the building of more houses for returned soldiers, and I think we might very well now ask that further grants be made under similar conditions. Before I left home I was handed a memorandum by the Great War Veterans' Association of New Westminster. The memorandum sets out certain arguments in favour of a further grant which I think are perfectly sound. These arguments are as follows:
1.	The object of the first appropriation has not been attained, viz; the alleviation of the shortage in housing accommodation. Rents are as high or even higher than in 1918 and the same shortage of houses exists.
2.	It is universally admitted that a community of people owning their own homes is a much greater asset to the state than a community of reni -payers. The ownership of a home creates a spirit of civic pride and fosters an interest in public affairs and community welfare which acts as a sedative to the present unrest and discourages the irresponsible agitator.
3.	To the returned soldiers, many of whom have only since returning from overseas assumed the position of head of a family, the scheme is of paramount benefit. The settling of these men in their own homes, where their tenancy is secure and they are not subject to exorbitant rents, and which puts within their reach a substantial dwelling which they would probably be unable to ocquire otherwise, is one of the most effective means of turning a soldier into a fully re-established citizen.
4.	The continuation of building operations at the present time would tend to relieve the present unemployment situation.
5.	The inauguration of a building programme at this time would necessitate large purchases of lumber and other supplies. This would have a stablilizing effect on the lumber market and would benefit the lumber mills which are now preparing to resume operations after a period of depression and uncertainty in the lumber trade. The purchase of other supplies from dealers in different trades would also tena to keep money in circulation and prevent stagnation in business during a trying time.
Now the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has said that if any one is going

to loan money for the purchasing or building of houses it should be the municipalities. Well, that is exactly what this scheme contemplates. The Dominion Government, as a matter of fact, only finances the provinces and they in turn finance the municipalities, so that the municipalities are really the ones who assume the responsibility for the indebtedness. The Dominion Government has a perfectly good security when it has the bond of the provincial governments, and the latter have a perfectly good security when they have the backing of the municipalities. My hon. friend from North Oxford also said that the municipalities could borrow the money just as well as the Government could. In that view I am afraid he was mistaken. My hon. friend, of course, has a good deal of knowledge in respect to financial matters, but I am inclined to think he made that statement without giving the matter much thought; it is well known that a municipality cannot borrow money on such good terms as a government can do; and the security of the Dominion Government is much better in the markets of the world than that of any municipality. The hon. member for North Oxford said furthermore that in his town they would not think of asking for any loan of this kind. That fact does not need to affect the situation in any way. My hon. friend's town does not necessarily have to take advantage of this plan, neither does any municipality which does not deem it advisable to go into the loaning of monies under this scheme. The municipality has to decide on the applications which are made, and if it considers it is not advisable to proceed with the scheme there is no obligation on its part to do so. It seems to me that the plan to which I have referred is a good one and should be continued. I know there are a large number of soldiers who find themselves more or less homeless and who would gladly take advantage of the opportunity of borrowing more money under the scheme which has been in force. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge upon the Government the continuation of the former scheme of lending money for the purpose of helping our returned men to build homes.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, I was opposed to the legislation passed in 1919 permitting the Government to loan money to the provinces, to be in turn loaned to the municipalities; and I am also opposed to this resolution. I am not a socialist, nor do I believe in paternalism in government. We have had entirely too much of that form of government in recent years, and we have loaned money so freely that the credit of the country has been jeopardized in every way that any hon. member opposite could think of. We have come to the time when our national credit is more or less strained, and when every hon. member should be aiming to devise ways and means for economizing in our expenditures and conserving Canada's credit.
My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr Hocken) is fairly consistent with the average Ontario Tory-he is quite willing tc get something for Ontario. The opinion seems to prevail among most of the people in that province that the other provinces exist solely for the purpose of spoon-feeding Ontario. They must have protection for their manufactured goods-ploughs, for instance; they must jeopardize the national credit in order that they may be able to sell those goods to foreign countries that will never repay the 5 p.m. loans we have advanced them;
and they must have at every session special legislation in support of the peculiar industries of their province. I see in the Public Accounts ending March 31, 1920, that under the $25,000,000-loan proposition Ontario got $8,750,000, while the other eight provinces availed themselves of the loan only to the extent of $2,990,000. In other words, Ontario got two and a half times as much money from this Government as all the other provinces combined.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That was the fault of
the other provinces.


Frank S. Cahill: The "fault" of the other
provinces was that their credit was better than the credit of the Dominion in some instances and better than the credit of Ontario. The province of Quebec availed itself of that $25,000,000 loan only to the extent of $60,000, because their credit was better than the credit of the Dominion; they could borrow money cheaper themselves. They did not believe in special legislation, and they did not believe in paternalism in government.
At the present time the business of this Government is not socialism, its business is to take care of the wants of all the people. This country offers sufficient opportunities to men of enterprise and energy to make their own way without being spoon-fed by the Government; perhaps there is no country in the world that offers such ample opportunities to every-



one. And yet we are called upon from day to day to pass special legislation taxing one citizen to enable other citizens to live in comfort and, in many cases, in idleness. Let each individual stand on his own feet. Let the Government legislate for all the people instead of giving special privileges to particular classes, and let the Government not interfere with trade unless that trade interferes with the rights of any of our citizens. Then we will have a country that will attract the best class of immigrants, because they will recognize that their success depends on their own initiative and resolution. Let us give all our people an equal standing. No man wants anything more; no man is entitled to anything more.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It chanced that I was absent from the Chamber when the mover of the resolution concluded his remarks. Had I been in the Chair my intention was to put the question to the House whether it would concur in the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve. I hope the House will concur, because then there will be no question whatsoever about the propriety or form of the resolution. The proposed amendment is:
That the words "the sum of ten million dollars should be appropriated annually for a period of five years" be stricken out, and the words "an annual appropriation should be made," inserted in lieu thereof.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to amend his motion accordingly?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Boyce: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to say anything on this resolution, not knowing that it would come Up to-day, but I was a little taken aback by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) indulging in his usual hard knocks at the province of Ontario. Now, I did not think that this resolution had any-think in particular to do with the province of Ontario, but that it related to the whole Dominion. Although this resolution comes from a gentleman of very great ability, still, I consider it a very dangerous proposal, for several reasons. It would mean that the cities would take advantage of the proposed appropriation, as the country places would have no occasion to avail themselves of it- but of course they would have to do their share toward finding the money. Further, if this resolution became law we would have to organize a new department at great expense, and by the time we had paid the salaries of an architect and other officials
I MV. Cahill.]
to carry out the regulations a large sum of money would be spent apart altogether from that devoted to encouraging the building of homes. No doubt as long as the Government would do the building there would be any number of people ready to take the houses; and there is no question that there would be a very small return on the money loaned. But, apart from the heavy expenditure this proposal would entail, it would have the further disadvantage of taking away from our young men any incentive to exert themselves to provide their own homes-and we all know that in times past we had to work very hard to become our own landlords. And where is this going to end? We have old age pensions, we have soldiers' pensions, pensions for unemployment are going to be proposed, and I do not know what other suggestions of a similar kind. Any legislation to help our soldiers I am heartily in accord with, but legislation such as this resolution suggests would not enure to the general advantage of the country, and the Treasury cannot afford it. Our national debt stands at the stupendous figure of over $2,000,000,000, and with our other financial commitments I think we ought to be very slow to build houses for those who do not intend to work for themselves. But I think if one stipulation had been inserted in this resolution it would be very beneficial to our young men, namely, that the picture shows and theatres be closed so that what those young men earn during the day they may not spend at night. Then they might be able to save some money to build homes of their own. I think we would do well to restore to as great an extent as possible that free and independent spirit that prevailed in Canada among the early settlers in connection with their getting themselves established and building up homes in a new country for themselves and their families. I am against the resolution for the reasons which I have stated, although I support the idea that we should do all we possibly can for those deserving people who are in poor circumstances and cannot own their own homes. But as for encouraging the younger man or any man to waste his time or to indulge in habits of idleness in making him the offer of a house under the terms suggested, I will vote against it every time.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) :: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the general remarks of the mover (Mr. Hocken) of the resolution. I believe, as I think we all do, that the home is the foundation of character

and the foundation of our country, and coming as I do from a city the major1 ty of whose inhabitants own their own homes, I know the value to a community of a home-owning population. If, therefore, I attempt to criticize some features of the suggestions made, I do not do so from any desire of decrying the main idea.
In the first place, it has been suggested, not by the mover but by a subsequent speaker, that the Government might enter the lending business. That, I think, would be q grave mistake. In 1914, and early in 1915, the Government saw fit, under extraordinary circumstances, to make large grants to certain of the farmers in the West-grants which in the majority of cases resulted in a wonderful return both to the men themselves and to the country at large. I believe that-speaking from memory-out of about $12,000,000 advanced for seed grain, fodder and relief at that time, there is still owing on account of principal, not taking interest into consideration, something like $2,000,000. It is difficult to persuade borrowers from a government to repay, as they will and must repay a private corporation. I was much struck by a speech delivered in Moose Jaw not long ago by Mr. Dunning, the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, in which he was reviewing the operations of the Saskatchewan Farm Loan Board. He pointed out that in respect of loans made over a period of some three years-I do not think the board has been operating longer than three years-amounting to about $6,000,000, there were now $300,000 of interest in arrear. Mr. Dunning said in the frankest way, as is his wont: "When a man borrows from the government, about the last thing he seems to think it necessary to do is to repay, and I tell you gentlemen, unless our borrowers change their methods, our whole scheme will break down." However, the mover has suggested that instead of the Government entering the lending business, money should be advanced, as I understand it, by Government through loan corporations who would be entrusted with the lending of the money and with the perhaps more arduous task of collecting repayments. I do not know that that is impossible, but it could hardly be done free of charge. I have been able to go into calculations as to the cost only since the resolution was moved this afternoon, and I am afraid that difficulties might be produced which are not in the minds of hon. members. Take the case instanced by the mover, of an investment in a property of $3,000, ten per cent being provided by the 731
borrower and the balance, $2,700, being obtained by him through loan. I take it that the amount mentioned, $3,000, was supposed to be sufficient to pay for both lot and building, otherwise the loan would have to be larger or the borrower would, have to put up more money. Well, if we assume that the lot and the building would cost $3,000-and I am afraid that the cases in which both could be obtained for that amount are somewhat rare-we have first'to agree what rate of interest would be paid; nothing was said about that. I have to guess the rate; I place it at seven per cent,-that is distinctly below the present market rate in a good many of the provinces. The Government could hardly borrow to-day any considerable amount of money in Canada at less than six per cent. Then, the company charged with the supervision of lending and collecting would have to get about one per cent per annum, and even at that rate they would not be too well paid if the work were properly done. With interest at seven per cent; with taxes at an average rate of thirty mills; with an assessment at the rate of ninety per cent of the value of the propery; with insurance, and with a certain amount by way of repayment on principal, a payment of about $400 a year would be required from the borrower of $2,700, at least for the first few years,-his interest bill would, of course, decrease as his principal was reduced. Now, I leave it to the House whether the average borrower who put up ten per cent, or $300, at the outset, could fairly be counted upon to supply $400 per annum with which to carry on. Much would depend, of course, upon his occupation, his rate of wage, and his success in finding work throughout the year.
It is quite true, as was said by the mover, that the number of foreclosures or sales by loan companies, at least in Ontario, has been very small. That has been due, perhaps, to two causes. In the first place, prices, both of real estate and of building, have generally been rising, and if the original borrower were unable to pay he could always find some one to take over his bargain-some one, perhaps, in a better position to meet the debt and finally pay it off. In the second place, we must not lose sight of the fact that while, in the pre-war days, loan companies were prepared to lend up to, say, sixty per cent of the value of a house as established by an independent person, I doubt very much whether they would agree to-day to lend more than fifty per cent, having regard to present values and prices. Nor is it diffi-

cult to understand why, because in the February issue of the Labour Gazette, page 250, the index number on the first of January of this year relating to the wholesale prices of building materials-the prices of forty-eight different kinds of materials in various sections of the country being taken as a basis-was 347.1, as compared with 140.6 for January, 1913. In other words, building materials have increased in cost nearly two and one-half times in the last seven years. I happen to know that some companies, while they are prepared to lend half the value of real estate, limit their loans on buildings to 331 per cent of their present cost. If under the plan suggested we are to make a loan of 90 per cent of the present cost and to insist upon repayments of principal

and this is the only safe method of conducting such a business-we have an entirely different situation from that confronting loan companies lending 50 or even 60 per cent of the cost. I for one would fear that in many cases there would, of necessity, be default, and if the loan company were compelled, as I presume it would be, in carrying out its bargains with the Government, to take proceedings, too often the original builders or owners would lose such money as they had put into their homes. There is a vast difference between an owner who has an equity of 40 or 50 per cent in his home and one who has an equity of 10 per cent. Something was said, I suppose jocularly, to the effect that you never get out of a loan company's hands. The last thing, in the world a loan company wants is to get property on its hands; that is not its business. I can only speak for the mortgage company with which I am connected, and I can say that for thirteen or fourteen years at least, we have had no property on our hands. As a matter of fact, while twenty years ago, we were lending to farmers and others in the immediate vicinity of our offices millions of money, we are to-day borrowing from those same men an equal or greater amount which in turn we lend to others who are starting in life as they did. We are lending it out very largely to western farmers who, I have every belief and hope, will repeat the experience of their Ontario brothers and be, before long, in the market as lenders rather than as borrowers.
One w'ord as to the soldiers. We have, as has been said, considered this question more than once. To my mind, the great difficulty arose from this question:	If
we are to have a scheme for allowing a
[Mr. Cronyn. j
soldier to build a home, and if we are to advance to him 80 or 90 per cent of the cost thereof, what can we say to the soldier who has a mortgage already on his home? Must we not make an advance to him if we can get that money at a lower rate? What can we say to the man who wants to buy out a business? Must we not advance money to him to enable him to establish a business? Is not that essentially re-establishment? And are there not many other proposals equally deserving, equally of advantage to the country, to which we could hardly say "no," if we start in the business of advancing money to soldiers for any other purpose than that one now in force, namely, agricultural settlement?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Mr. Speaker, I think we are indebted to my hon. friend and colleague in the next constituency to mine (Mr. Hocken), for bringing this matter before the House, and I desire to say a word or two in support of his resolution. He has pictured in a very lucid manner, and apparently as a result of much thought, a condition of domestic life which is not attended by proper comfort and safeguards. His experience for many years as controller and mayor in a large city has enabled him to speak with authority on these matters. I have been told by others, and I know myself, that in large cities now the housing situation is becoming so acute that something must be done, because the congestion makes a squalor which is bound to have an evil effect upon families and, indeed, one might say that it affects the morality of the people. A condition where there are three or four families in a seven-roomed house with a community of kitchen arrangements, and that sort of thing, cannot but have an evil effect and get us into the same condition which has been fought now for fifty or sixty years in the slums of the large cities of Europe. England and Scotland have known that, despite all the arguments against such a proposition from an economic standpoint, it is not the theory of economics that must be considered, but the condition that exists that must be met. That shows the importance of dealing in a serious manner with the resolution which is now before the House.
It is quite true that many of the remarks which fell from the lips of the hon. membe* for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) may be agreed with, and yet dissented from on the ground that this is a condition of affairs which is fast becoming desperate. The remarks of my hon. friend, whose advice on

these matters is always listened to with attention in this House, should not have too much effect upon hon. members, because of the very careful, cautious manner in which he deals with a business proposition. The result of his remarks was to throw a wet blanket, so to speak, upon an admirable proposition. You cannot look at these things solely from a business standpoint at the present time, because with the return of the men from the war and their inability to cope with conditions of life on account of either mental or physical derangement, such a situation has been produced that the country must step in and, to some extent, be paternal in its efforts. I think the lending of money in the Northwest for grain is a totally different category from the present idea. Lending on wheat is lending on personal property, making a personal loan, and if some of that-only $2,000,000 as it appears-has not been repaid, that is unfortunate, but it is due to the condition that it is personal property and you have only the personal promise of the individual. But erecting buildings by Government, financing and keeping as security the buildings which you erect, means a loan which must be listed, in a totally different category. There is the building and the lot which cannot be removed, and you have not merely the personal promise of the occupant, but the building and the land themselves. Therefore, the security is infinitely better, and I do not think the House should be influenced to frown upon a motion of this kind where the security always seems to be in hand and not dependent altogether on the personal character of the borrower. It is true a careful loan company will get reports on the personal character of those to whom it proposes to loan money, and if it finds that the applicant is reckless or a spendthrift it will not lend to him-but that is largely for their own convenience because they do not wish to have to take over land on which they have loaned money.
The great advantage in a scheme of this kind, of building many houses, is that the cost is made so much less because of the standardization of the different parts, and because of the wholesale purchase of materials. Bricks and lumber, for instance, could be got wholesale from the manufacturers instead of each man buying individually, and by standardizing window frames and other articles you would get a very much cheaper general cost.
My hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) has put in a word of caution against going into a scheme of this sort
as an aid to returned soldiers, on the ground that it may be demanded that the scheme be extended to men who wish money to start up in business, to men who already have houses on which there is a mortgage and which they ask to be relieved from, or to men who wish to obtain their money at a cheaper rate. These difficulties no doubt exist, and the demands may be made, but if you have a clear-cut proposal in the first place for the building and financing of houses in order to alleviate the dreadful condition in some of our cities, I think we can look with equanimity on what is likely to happen in the way of demands from other sources. If it is not possible for us to go further than this particular scheme, let us say so, and not refuse to go in,to, a good scheme simply because other and further demands may be made.


Willis Keith Baldwin: It has been said that these houses would not be removable, therefore, I presume they would be of fireproof construction. But if not fire-proof, who would pay for the expense of insuring the building, and for repairs, and so forth?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My idea is that each different item-taxes, insurance, rent, and so forth-should be paid in one instalment, so that the man would know exactly what he would have to pay.


Willis Keith Baldwin: What would you think the overhead charges would be? Some one would have to look after the repairs, insurance, and upkeep generally.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My idea on that is very clear. This scheme cannot be put through except in a community or block, and every community should run its own business affairs. Overhead expenses and depreciation should be provided for jointly by the community and the householder. Of course, I speak now more with reference to the scheme referred to by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) with regard to block communities near large cities, meant chiefly for returned soldiers who are not able to obtain housing accommodation under present conditions. My hon. friend is mistaken if he thinks that matter is not before the Pensions and Re-establishment Committee this year as it was before. I have not pressed it very hard because I have had in mind that the people of this country have not yet appreciated what has been done in the Old Country and the United States along these lines. When we think of the immense increase in the value of property in the model villages in the Old Country,

owing to scientific management, architectural design, and beauty of landscape, we need not be alarmed at all as to any losses occurring. I am told that properties in Letchworth have increased by one-third in appraised value, just because of the popularity of the life which these model villages afford. This refers to a model village or block town near to a large centre. Undoubtedly, despite the protest of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Boyce), these are meant for the town man. We have already looked after the farmer, or those who can become farmers, by our Soldier Settlement plan. But there are other men who are in the most unfortunate position of having given up their little business or trade in the town when they went to the war, and who find when they come back that they are not able to make their way. Now those men should be looked after by the country just as much as, if not more than the men who can go on the farm and make a success of it. While the object of the motion is to provide these residences in towns, for city men, I do not think the people of this country will dissent from that at all, because they know of so many men who have been unable to make their way and provide proper housing for themselves and their families. The man from the city who comes back from the war and finds that he cannot get back the business he practically sacrificed is in a dire plight. He may by vocational training, perhaps, learn to make his living in some other way, yet he has not the money to house his family properly, and this is a scheme, not to give him the money, not to provide any dole or charity-because the instalments to be applied on purchase should be rigidly insisted on

but to assist him in getting a home for himself and his family. Of course, if you are going to play the game of giving in to every man who cannot pay his instalment, who makes a poor mouth and writes letters to the paper, and gets ill-advised people to fight for him, the scheme will fail. The commission must rigidly insist on the terms of purchase being complied with; And if that is done, the country will be at no loss. On the other hand, these little communities will increase in value and will greatly contribute to the happiness and content of a vast number of people, and will prevent many from slipping into slum life and becoming degraded both in morals and living conditions generally.


William Foster Cockshutt: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to agree with my two estimable friends from Toronto,

for, contrary to the expectation of my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), I am not one of those who believe the government should go into a housing scheme on a wholesale scale. I have had a little experience in houses myself, and if the Government want to lose money I would recommend them to go into a housing scheme on a large scale. I do not think we are in a position to risk the finances of our country in such a scheme as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) has laid before us. The reason houses are scarce today is because it does not pay to build them; that is the reason pure and simple. If you can make housing a profitable investment, capital will be found to build houses, but under the conditions which now obtain in the building trade it is not possible to buy land and build a house in any of our towns and cities and make 5 per cent clear. That has been my experience, and I think I am well within the mark. I believe one would make a good deal less than 5 per cent. After the local taxation is paid, and after insurance repairs, burst pipes, and all the rest of it, are attended to, owners of houses will find that their rental bill has dropped very materially, and I leave it to any hon. gentleman who has experience in the renting of houses-I am speaking of those that rent at a moderate rate-whether it is not a very poor-paying business, and one that brings endless trouble to owners. I want to point out that if the Government is going into the housing scheme, it is going to drive out individual effort along that line. That fact should not be forgotten, and that is precisely why fewer houses are being built to-day than should be the case. Private investors have become afraid that the Government is really going into building as a business. I have just made a rough calculation that there are probably 2,000,000 homes in Canada, that is, allowing about four and half to five persons per home-and I think that is a moderate estimate. Suppose twenty-five percent of these required government help to house them properly-that would be a fair proposition. That would leave 500,000 homes to be provided. Take these at the moderate price of $3,000 each and you have $1,500,000,000 invested in (homes for twenty-five per cent of the people, or a proposition about equal in magnitude to the nationalization of the railways of Canada. Now, if the Government is going to take the place of the private investor, it ought to take the whole field, because the private investor who has to pay 7 per cent for

his money cannot compete with the Government, or with government-aided houses that are paying 5 or 6 per cent. Private investors, under such circumstances, will not enter the field. I have seen some very good articles in British reviews lately on this question. Lady Selborne, I think, has written two or three articles, after very close consideration of the housing scheme, and she gives an analysis of the .question with which the British Government is faced, the situation there being very much more acute than in Canada; and she points out that if the Government implements the scheme it has under consideration, it will tax the national financial capacity to its utmost. Surely, in the present state of the finances of Canada, we do not want to embark on a scheme that will cost as much as I have stated, and not $50,000,000 as this resolution suggests. Why, $50,000,000 could be consumed in the city of Toronto alone.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: And in the city of Montreal there would have to be spent a considerably larger sum. Every town and city in Canada would also call for some expenditure, if the Government took hold of the proposition on a proper scale. In the finality, the scheme practically amounts to the nationalization of the homes in Canada, by which I mean those houses which people cannot afford to build for themselves.
Now, the returned soldier is in quite a different position. If he wants help, I say by all means let him have it, whether it is to build a home or to establish himself in business, or on a farm. For that I hold up both hands, if the country can afford it. But if any great industry-and I speak now as one who is somewhat interested in industry-finds its own men are not properly housed. I say that it is the duty of the manufacturer to put up houses, to see that his employees are housed as they should be. I stand for that; I believe it is a sound principle. I think that some manufacturers in Canada have done this, and all model factories that want to look after their hands properly know that one of the first considerations in the problem of maintaining stable help is to have employees well paid, and well housed, as far as possible, in fairly close proximity to the works. Of course, it is not possible to house them too close to the factories, but accomodation could be found for them away from the smoke and annoyance of their work and yet within easy walking distance. That is possible in all our smaller
towns and cities, although it is out of the question in Toronto, Montreal, and two or three of the larger centres. My contention, in brief, is, that the sum required for housing the people of Canada should not be spent for any one city, but for all our cities, and for the country as well if the people there require it. I say, house every one if you are going to enter into this business at all. If you are going to lend money to builders of all houses that are required, I believe my figures will be found to be fairly conservative, and I estimate that it will take about $1,500,000,000 for the initial expense of a housing scheme at present. Building material is at present out of sight, so to speak, and you will not get houses to-day for $6,000, which five or six years ago you could build for $3,000. The present, therefore, is not a good time at which to embark on the building business on a large scale, because the man who builds to-day on 5 per cent money may find that within two or three years his margin of 2 per cent on interest will have shrunk to such an extent by the falling market, which I expect in the near future in building materials, and possibly in labour, that this $6,000 house will have shrunk to $4,000. So that if he had a margin of safety of $2,000, that would be wiped out under existing conditions of building. If he built a $4,000 or $3,000 house he ought to have from $30 to $35 per month for it, and that is a large rent for a working man to pay. It is more than he should be called upon to pay, but it is not more than is demanded in all our towns to-day. People are asked to pay from $30 to $35 and even more per month. Therefore, with all deference to my hon. friend from West Toronto, I hope he will not try to induce the Government to embark on a scheme of such magnitude as this would undoubtedly be. It cannot be undertaken on a small scale if it is to be equitable, and as the scale it calls for is out of the question, I trust that the House will not sanction this proposal involving an expenditure of $50,000,000, because it would not settle the question. This sum is a mere bagatelle to what is required, and would not be of any benefit to those who borrow money and build today, because they would lose on their proposition by the shrinkage I have pointed out. And as the resolution stands, it calls for something which this Government has never been asked to do before. Let the cities, and the manufacturers particularly, look after the housing of their own people, and if the soldiers require homes, as I think they do, then that should be looked

after by the committee that has been appointed, and which will probably bring in a recommendation on the subject. I trust the motion will not be seriously considered by the House.
Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre)-: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the many arguments in this debate, and I am still firmly of the same opinion as at the outset, namely, that there is a great shortage of houses in Canada. I am under the impression that if our health by-laws were properly enforced in Winnipeg, we should have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 people without homes at all. This is a state of affairs that has to be met some time, somehow, and if we are not competent to meet it, I have not the slightest doubt that some other bunch of legislators will come who will be able to deal with the matter. People have to live in decent houses, and, as I say, by some means or other, this problem must be faced. I was somewhat annoyed by a remark of one hon. gentleman who said that he was not in favour of this Government going into schemes of this kind, because he believed in people standing on their own feet. I feel compelled to point out to that hon. gentleman that there are many citizens of Canada who have not two feet to stand on; they lost them in the war. My particular object in rising now is to refer to that phase of the subject.
The hon. member who moved the resolution referred particularly to the returned soldiers. Now, we already have a Special Committee sitting which is empowered to investigate their affairs, and as it is very apparent to my mind,-as I am sure it will be the wish of hon. members-that if any class at all should receive consideration it should be this class, and bearing in mind the fact that they undoubtedly would be the first class to receive such consideration, I think the debate has reached the stage where we might well pass the subject on to the Soldiers' Committee. Under the circumstances, with the permission of the House, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock. PROPOSED RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO SIT IN EITHER CHAMBER
Rodolphe Lemieux: [Mr. Cockshutt.l
That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of good government, that Ministers of the Crown should he permitted to sit in either Chamber, whenever measures and policies are introduced affecting their respective departments.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Government benches are practically empty. In the good old days ministers were in their seats betimes, but after having passed through so many embarrassments of late perhaps the tardy attendance of the members of the present ministry is not to be wondered at. At all events, Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed with my resolution. I have brought it forward with a view to expediting the business of the House, believing it to be a reform well worthy of adoption by this Parliament.
At Confederation we adopted the bicameral system. I know there are some people in the country, and perhaps in this House, who think that we should be satisfied with one chamber; but I believe that there is a large body of public opinion which stands for an upper chamber. No doubt our upper chamber might with advantage be reformed in certain respects, but I am confident that I am in the right when I assert that the mass of the people are in favour of the continuance of the bi-cameral system.
Personally, I am in favour of an upper chamber.	First, because it was instituted for the protection of minorities in our Confederation. Second, because the representatives of certain of the provinces which united to form the Dominion feared that the predominance of the larger provinces in Parliament might perhaps prejudice the interests of the smaller ones, and they therefore insisted on the establishment of an upper chamber. Third, because I have an ingrained respect for the pact of Confederation itself. That pact is sacred to all the provinces, and their representatives should see that no encroachment is made on our constitution.. And then, as Sir John A. Macdonald said, when he pleaded in favour of an upper chamber at the time of the Confederation debates:
A second chamber has been recognized in all democratic countries as a check against ill-considered and hasty legislation.
If this was true under normal conditions, it is still more so to-day when the world is passing through a crisis and as an aftermath of this great war there is in all parts of the world an agitation for reconstruction. The term " reconstruction " may cover many iniquities, and in order that we in this country may have the advantage of

a real reconstruction-a reconstruction which will be in the best interests of the country and which will he carried out in a spirit of respect for the constitution and for the rights of all classes of the community-I believe that an upper chamber is perhaps even more necessary now than under normal conditions.
And Sir, much as the upper chamber might be criticized, I believe that on many occasions it has given evidence of real independence of thought and action. Not later than two years ago many senators, appointed by the present Government, were not afraid to cast their votes against what I believed was ill-considered and hasty legislation, a legislation which may perhaps very seriously involve the future of Canada itself. I refer to their vote on the very important issue of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no room for Senate reform. For instance, I believe that there should be an age limit, and perhaps a change in the mode of selection of the gentlemen who occupy seats in the upper chamber. I have always thought that the election of senators might in itself be a very good reform-election by legislatures, boards of trade, universities, and such public bodies. Of course, that is another question; I simply mention it this evening because I do not wish it to be thought that this resolution means something which it does not mean. Some of my friends on both sides of the House have thought that perhaps I was favouring the appointment of Cabinet ministers to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to allow the upper chamber to be without representatives of the Government; we must face the situation that there will always be at least a leader representing the Government in that body, and occasions will arise when it will be necessary to have Cabinet ministers in the Senate. I do think, however, that mostly all Cabinet ministers should occupy seats in the popular chamber and that the less there are in the upper chamber the better for the Government and better for Canada. At all events, if any Cabinet ministers have to sit in the upper chamber, it is to be hoped that the Government, whether Liberal, Conservative or Agrarian, will always see to it that ministers in charge of spending departments sit in the popular chamber. I think that is a sound principle.
In England we have the time-honoured House of Lords; several ministers of the Crown sit in that chamber. I do not know
how many members of the present British Government sit in the House of Lords, but I know that certain of them do, and not the least important of them, at that. In England there have been cases where even the Prime Minister sat in the upper chamber; I recall the names of Lord Beacons-field, Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery. But in all those cases, which were exceptional cases, the Government was represented in the popular chamber by most brilliant and distinguished men who really carried public opinion with them,-Gladstone, Balfour, Asquith, Lloyd George; and I could name several others. But I believe that in England the day has gone by when prime prime ministers shall sit in the upper chamber. Thqugh tradition means much in that country, yet with the new wave of public opinion and with the reforms which have come gradually-indeed, the constitution itself is made up of precedents which come slowly down from year to year-I believe that the force of public opinion in England will not now stand for that practice and in days to come the prime minister, representing public opinion, representing the new democracy, will have a seat in the popular assembly and there propound the policies of the government. Of course, the government will always be represented by some very eminent minister in the upper chamber.
The Commons, Mr. Speaker, has been and is to-day the great inquest of the nation. To the Commons belongs the most important problems of government. To the Commons must be announced the policies of the government. Indeed, the House of Commons is the great lever of the British constitution. True it is that no Bill, no Act of Parliament, is perfect or complete without the sanction of His Majesty the King; all measures are sanctioned by His Majesty the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. But everybody feels that the great driving power in matter of legislation belongs to the House of Commons, and it is right that it should be so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, though I am a traditionalist-and I am not ashamed to say that I am a traditionalist-the realities of life will perforce bring some radical changes. Of course, as I have intimated, as 'long as we have the bicameral system- and I hope we shall maintain it-the government of the day must be represented in some way in the Senate.

But I do not see why a minister sitting in the upper chamber or in the House of Commons should be debarred from appearing in the other chamber, without having a right to vote. I do not see why a minister of the Crown sitting, for instance, in the upper chamber, should not have a right to appear before the House of Commons to explain the policies of his department and to answer questions when the Estimates of his department arp scrutinized in the House. Nor do I see why the gentlemen who occupy the Government benches in this House should not be allowed to appear in the upper chamber to give there such explanations as may be required of them. There is nothing new under the sun. This system which I am now propounding is the system followed in France, where it is not necessary that a minister of the Republic should even be elected by the people, and I suppose that would suit many of my hon. friends who have, at the present njoment, cabinet aspirations. This happens very often. But presently, M. Briand is a member of the Chambre des Deputes. The old tiger, M. Clemenceau, was also a member of one of the two Houses, I forget whether it was the Senate or the Chambre des Deputes. M. Leygues, who was defeated a few weeks ago, is a member of the Chambre des Deputes. The ministers at all events are not necessarily members of the French Parliament, and ministers in France can be summoned to appear on different occasions before either the popular assembly or the Senate. Last year I was a very close follower of the sessions of the French Parliament, and I could see one afternoon, for instance, a minister of the Republic appearing before the popular assembly, giving explanations, answering questions and passing from that assembly to the Senate sitting at the Luxembourg Palace. It is simply common sense that ministers of the Crown in Canada should have the same privilege. Both Houses should have the same right, because I claim as a right, on the part of any member, that when a policy is presented to the House, if the minister who has prepared, laid out, planned and initiated that policy, sits in the other chamber, he should be amenable here to explain that policy, to answer questions, to accept amendments. When the budget of such a minister's department is being debated before this House-and this is the only branch of Parliament which can discuss and debate at length the budget of a department and move for its 
reduction at the request of a member. I think it is simply commons sense that members of this House should have the right to summons the minister whose policy is questioned or whose budget is criticized. I stated a moment ago that in such an occurrence I would not give to the minister, belonging to the other chamber and appearing before this House, a vote; but he would speak freely in the House; he would explain as many times as necessary, and he would, therefore, help in framing the legislation and in directing the policy of the Government which, in the final result, becomes the policy of Parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the hon. member allow a minister sitting in a chamber other than the one to which he belongs, to make a motion?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That, of course, is a question of detail which might be framed in the amendment which would be necessary to the rules of the House; but at first sight, I would say: No. I would say that he could suggest to one of his colleagues, or to any other member of the House, the main features of the motion, and he would be allowed to speak in support of it. I would not give him more power than he is entitled to. We, the members of the popular branch of Parliament, are vested with special powers; our rights, so to speak, are sacred. We hold those right directly from the people; we have a right to discuss; we have a right to condemn; we have a right to amend; we have a right to denounce, under certain rules. My object, it seems to me, is a common sense one. I will give some concrete examples of what trouble can be caused by the absence from this House of ministers who have seats in another chamber. My object is to bring ministers sitting, let us say, in the Senate, before the House of Commons, to explain their policies, to defend their Estimates and to accept whatever amendments are suggested by the House. At the present time, three ministers of the Crown have seats in the upper chamber, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Labour and the Postmaster General. The Minister of Labour is, it seems to me, essentially a representative of the people. I perhaps can understand why the present incumbent is in the upper chamber. I certainly will not minimize the ability and, I believe, the honesty of purpose of the present Minister of Labour I had some dealings with the hon. gentleman whep he was president of the Telegraphers' Union, and I was Minister of

Labour in a former administration, and I wish to say openly and publicly that my official relations with him at that time were certainly of the best, and undoubtedly in the interests of labour. I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the place of the Minister of Labour is essentially in the House of Commons. He represents the labouring masses of this country, among whom we know there is at present quite a feeling of unrest. We may be called upon at any moment to pass legislation directly affecting the labouring masses. In fact, the most important legislation to come before us, the tariff legislation, affects labour to a very considerable degree. It therefore seems to me that the Minister of Labour ought surely to be in the House of Commons, but the Government, in the exercise of their right, have chosen to appoint him with a seat in the upper chamber.
Leaving aside for the moment the publication of labour statistics and the Labour Gazette, let us consider only one phase of his work, the administration of the Industrial Disputes' Act. The wise administration of that Act, affecting as it does, all public utilities in Canada, is certainly of the utmost importance to the country. Last year, my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) was in charge of a Bill initiated by the Labour Department, amendments were sought affecting the Industrial Disputes Act, and my right hon. friend with all his ability, with all his astuteness, had to report progress on two or three different occasions because he was not sufficiently informed on the matter. Now if there is a man in the House whose legal acumen* is admitted by all, it is certainly the leader of the Government, but on that piece of legislation I well remember that he was obliged to report progress in the dying days of the session in order to confer with his colleague the Minister of Labour. There was a case which I think shows the necessity of an amendment to our rules so that; the minister would be in a position when legislation affecting his department was before the House to come and explain his policies to the House.
Take the case of the Minister of the Interior. If I mistake not, there has been grafted upon the Department of the Interior the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Now, every member of this House, and nearly every family in the ridings which we represent, is deeply interested in the civil re-establishment of our soldiers. Then as to the Department of the
Interior itself, it is a vast department affecting the whole of the Northwest Territories, with its wonderful, potential natural resources. It would not be too much to say that the future of Canada lies, in great measure, in the wise and safe administration of that department. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government, who presided over the Department of the Interior for a few years, knows that it is certainly one of the most important departments of the Government. Well, it so happens this year that the minister in charge of that department is the leader of the Government in the Senate Chamber. Is it fair, Mr. Speaker, that this House should be deprived of the ability of that hon. gentleman, for he is certainly one of the ablest men I have met, and of the benefit of his explanations when matters affecting his department are under discussion? Is it fair that he in turn should be deprived of the benefit of the constructive criticism that we sometimes have to offer to the very involved legislation that from time to time is initiated in connection with his department? I think every one will admit that if the Minister of the Interior had a seat in this House instead of in the upper chamber, it would be far better for the country. But it so happens that he sits there and I again put the question I put a moment ago:	Does not common sense dictate
that we so amend our rules as to bring that minister into this House whenever legislation affecting his department is under consideration here?
I now come to the Post Office Department. Here is a large spending department, which affects every constituency, every city, every town, every village, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. The Postmaster General not only looks after the administration of his department here in Ottawa, but from my own experience I know that the reports from the various inspectors come directly to him and that no post office is opened in even the smallest village in Canada without the matter first coming under his survey. One can see by the questions that are put on the Order Paper, and by the motions for the return of papers, how the administration of that department concerns every member of the House of Commons. The Postmaster General sits in the upper chamber; and I know that for many years, because of the absence of that minister in another House, we have not been able to have even a proper debate on the huge expenditures of the Post Office Department.

This is not satisfactory; it is not fair; it is not just. And if the Government will persist in keeping the Postmaster General in the Senate, which is contrary to common sense, and against the best interests of the people, surely my resolution ought to be adopted, because of all ministers the Postmaster General should, on occasion, be able to appear before the House of Commons and give those explanations which are required of him. Now, he has not only the administration of the post offices in his purview. A few years ago we adopted rural mail delivery, and I claim some credit for that reform, Mr. Speaker. It was under our Government that the system of rural mail delivery was established in this country, and it has created a revolution in rural Canada, having brought the farmer closer to the city and more in contact with the markets than heretofore. In the organization of rural mail delivery, naturally the electors will call upon their representatives to explain why one route was selected in preference to another. And we know, also, that the revision of the mail contracts makes for an enormous pile of correspondence with members of the House of Commons. Therefore, not only as regards the Postmaster General, hut so far as the Minister of the Interior, and the Minister of Labour are concerned, I think that my resolution fully applies and meets the case.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to make this a party resolution. I am speaking as an old parliamentarian, very anxious to expedite and facilitate the business of the House, and I believe that my resolution can be construed as having only that object in view. But speaking about the Postmaster General, does it not strike you, Sir, that the Government is somewhat in the wrong? Obviously so. The Postmaster General was a candidate at the last general election in two constituencies: he stood for election in Champlain and also in Laurier-Outremont. In both constituencies he was defeated, horse, foot and artillery. He was defeated hopelessly, but the Government waited for a few months and then appointed him to the other House. The minister did not even resign; he remained in office, and finally, on the eve of a session, the Government, against all British precedent, and against all parliamentary tradition, appointed him to the Senate. Let us draw a contrast between the British system of Government, and the Canadian Tory system. In England, the other day, the Secretary for Agriculture, Sir 
Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, was defeated, and defeated largely on a Canadian issue. He was a member of the Government and ran in the constituency of Dudley, where he was defeated. Do you think the Right Hon. Mr. Lloyd George would take upon himself to appoint Sir Griffith-Boscawen to the House of Lords? No, because there would be a revolt in public opinion if that were done in England. Sir Griffith-Boscawen will run in another constituency, and the whips of the Unionist party in England are at present looking for a riding where he may run as a candidate with a view to becoming Secretary for Agricul ture. I have just read this despatch in on< of the papers:
juunaon,
^viaicn	-vui. Denis ijoies nas
cttered to resign as member of Parliament for of Taunton, in order to give Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, the recently appoint-ec Minister of Agriculture, who lost the byelection in Dudley, another opportunity to find a seat.
It seems to me that another opportunity should be given to the present Postmaster General to be elected by his peers. My right hon. friend would probably say: Well, they appoint ministers of the Crown in England, to the House of Lords. Yes, they do. 1 notice in this morning's papers that a peerage has been offered to Mr. Bonar Law, but he has declined it. I can understand that a gentleman who has served his country brilliantly and with distinction, as he did for several years, may be offered, as in the case of Mr. Morley, a seat in the House of Lords. There can be no objection to his taking that honour. But, generally a public man does not take it with a cabinet portfolio. If he does, it is exceptional, and the department over which he presides is not an important one which would come under the everyday survey of the House of Commons.
I expressed the hope that my right hon. friend, who I know is British at heart, having at least said so during the last elections, and, indeed, having always lived up to British ideals, will in this matter maintain British tradition. I appeal to him and say: Be British! Here is a concrete case in which you have an opportunity to show your love of British tradition. You have the county of Yamaska, where my hon. friend, the present Postmaster General was born and brought up. Thai constituency is open at the present time, and there is a chance for him to appear before his peers, and get a mandate from the people. However, as I said a moment ago, this is not a party resolution; this

suggestion is only an aside, and I say it in all candour. I should like the members of the House on both sides to consider the feasibility of the application of my proposal. I move the resolution because I believe that, if adopted, it will facilitate and expedite the business of the House. It will demonstrate that the Government has some regard for the popular chamber. Above all, if the resolution is adopted, it will be an object lesson that in Canada we are in accord with the principles of responsible Government; and it is above all on that principle of responsible Government that I appeal to the House and ask it to support my resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, when
I first observed this resolution on the Order Paper it struck me as one of the most interesting and striking suggestions that I had seen on that paper for many years. At the time I had not heard that a change in our system had previously been suggested. But on referring to the records of both Houses for years gone by, I found a discussion of the same question taking place in the upper chamber in 1908. At that time the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in office. I am not aware how many ministers of that Government sat in the upper chamber, but not less, I believe, than two; and it was a matter of comment that so few ministers found their seats in the upper chamber, and a matter for a very general expression of regret, particularly in that chamber itself.
My hon. friend in urging this motion assumes, by way partly of an aside, that there are too many ministers of the present Government in the Senate, and particularly those who are at the head of the departments that should be especially responsible to, and in intimate association with, the House of Commons. I know that an argument to that end is not to the purpose of the resolution, but it might be worth while to refer to his contention in this regard for a moment. It is noteworthy that in the debate that took place in the Senate in 1908, a resolution was moved by a supporter of the Administration of that time, the Hon. Mr. David, a supporter indeed of the same party to-day, and in that resolution he expressed regret at the smallness of the number of ministers in the upper chamber. The resolution then proposed by Hon. Mr. David was as follows:
That the Senate, while not desiring to pronounce finally upon the numerous and various projects of reform which have been proposed
and discussed in connection with the Senate, yet in view of the differences of opinion on this subject, and until these projects have had time to mature, believes it opportune to declare that it is desirable in order to increase the efficiency of the Senate, that more legislation be initiated in the House, that more ministers of the Crown have seats therein, and that any minister personally may introduce and defend Government measures in both Houses.
That was moved by way of amendment to a resolution of the Hon. Mr. McMullen, and a further amendment was moved to this resolution. A debate ensued, but it
9 p.m. must be admitted that the discussion of the proposal brought forward was by no means so thorough or so interesting as that which the hon. member has been able to present to-night. Anyway, the reference I have made indicates that there was manifest at the time, and the debate shows it pretty definitely, a regret that there were not more of the ministers of the Crown in the upper chamber, and that more legislation did not initiate there. Nor was there any comment, in the course of that debate, on the subject of the special portfolios that might be held by ministers who had their seats there.
I followed closely the argument of the hon. member. He contended, with much emphasis, that it was unfair to Parliament that ministers of* important departments, and particularly spending departments, should have their seats in the Senate and not in the House of Commons; but my perception must be wrong if there was anything in the argument which he presented that would not apply to the minister of any department in the service of the Crown.
Every department is a spending department-some, of course, much more so than others. The largest spending departments are by no means the three that now are served by ministers in the upper chamber; but in so far as the spending of money is concerned that all comes before the Commons and the Commons alone. The Commons and the Commons alone must vote each and every individual item; and there-fpre, in that regard the power of consideration and criticism is vested in this assembly and its opportunity for that is ample. From that standpoint I am not able to appreciate the difference between the wisdom of having a minister at the head of a department sitting in the Senate and of having a minister sitting here-the difference between a minister sitting here and the minister of another department sitting in the other House. I know not what department may be chosen to which the argument of the hon. gentleman would not, in the main, apply. If

we take for example, the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of the Minister of Justice; these are not great spending departments, but they are large and important ones. They are departments having to do with the administration of affairs of vital and prominent concern, affairs in respect of which the representatives of the people must be in close and intimate touch from day to day; and there is no argument the hon. member has presented against the Postmaster General being a _ member of the upper house, that would not equally apply to show that the Secretary of State, or that the Minister of Justice, should not be a member of that House.


Mr. BUREAU:: What about the Solicitor General?


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General is not in the Commons a duplicate Minister of Justice. The Solicitor General, at all events since I occupied the office, has functions and duties in which, in no sense, does he review or come into direct contact with the work of the Minister of Justice himself. He takes a special line of work. I know what it is. That work he discharges; but that does not bring him into contact with the work discharged by the Minister of Justice nor with the superintendence of the various services over which the Minister of Justice presides. It seems to me that, while we have the bicameral system, there must be a number of ministers in the upper chamber, or the upper chamber cannot serve even that share of the public duties which it now serves; minor, I must say, in very many respects to those served by this chamber; it cannot serve even those, if we are ever still further to reduce the representation of the Government in that House. The hon. member argues, and argues well, that the bi-cameral system has many supporters in this country, has a very large proportion of public opinion behind it, and argues still more forcibly that whatever that proportion may be, it is very likely to continue in this country, in some form, for many years and decades to come. It is rooted in considerations that go to the protection of minorities -considerations that are particularly applicable to conditions in this Dominion. Consequently, though its functions may not be as important as was antieinated by the Fathers of Confederation, nevertheless it is bound for many years to come to remain one of the three estates of this country.
Coming to the real logic of the resolution, it seeks to have this House affirm that

ministers of the Crown in this chamber should have the right to pass to the other chamber '"whenever measures and policies are introduced affecting their respective departments" and speak thereon, and, similarly, that ministers of the Crown in the other chamber should, under like conditions, come here and enjoy the same privilege. I must say that much for which the hon. gentleman contends appeals to me, and I can see a very great deal of advantage indeed in such a system as he urges. On the other hand, there is very much to be considered before we launch definitely on any such scheme. One point was raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). For example, if a minister of the Crown in the Senate is to be allowed to come to the Commons to speak in relation, say, to his own Estimates, but not to make a motion or to vote, he virtually cannot conduct his Estimates through this House at all, because every discussion in the passage of Estimates arises on a motion, express or implied, that a certain vote appearing in the Estimates be made by this House. He cannot make that motion, consequently it must be assumed to be made by some one else. He is here to discuss it. But many discussions arise in this chamber where it would be very difficult to decide just whether it affected sufficiently the department over which presides the minister having a seat in the Senate to warrant that minister coming into this House and taking part in the debate. I presume it would be for the Speaker to decide just what the relationship was between the discussion and that department. But it would seem to me that if you go a certain length you must go all the way. and you must admit that a minister in either House can speak in the other House in relation to any subject that he desires to discuss. I think there would be very many practical difficulties in drawing a line and saying, "On subiects within a certain line you may come into the other House and address the Chair and the members thereof; but upon subjects beyond that line you must stay where you are." Anyway, I do not know that there would be very much to be feared if a minister were permitted to come into this House from the Senate and discuss any topic that is before us; or, vice versa, that a minister might go from this House to the Senate and discuss any topic that is under discussion there. In practice it would be availed of only in such cases as seemed to call for the attention of the minister in question in the other House. Very likely it

would work out in that way and there would be very little abuse of the privilege.
There is, though, this point that 1 should like to raise. The resolution, of course, only affirms a principle and does not in any way indicate how it is to be carried out. It would occur to me questionable indeed, whether this House or the upper house could, by its own resolution alone, enable one of its members to come into the other House and to take part in its proceedings as is intended by this resolution. Is it within the power of this House of Commons by resolution to enable a member of the Upper House to come and take his seat among us and to exercise in debate his influence upon the votes and decisions of this assembly? If that is to be done, must it not be done by amendment to the constitution itself? And if that is the proper procedure, then an Address from both Houses to the British Parliament would of course be the appropriate action leading to that end. It was suggested in the debate in 1908, I think by the Speaker of the Senate at that time, that there was power in either assembly by resolution to give this right to ministers sitting in the other House. But no argument was presented in favour of that contention, and its mere assertion did not appeal to me as sound. Anyway, I apprehend that neither this House nor the other House is going to take a step so important as this-because it is a very important step-after only one discussion, however thorough. It is naturally a question that should be debated not only in the two Houses of Parliament, but by the people, through the press, before we launch upon such a course. The debate which we have had will serve the purpose of bringing the question before the people, and I for one am very glad indeed that this resolution has been introduced by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, for he is well qualified from his historic knowledge and his parliamentary experience to debate the subject with profit to us all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I think that probably the House will be disposed to agree with the right hon. the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) in his view that the House could hardly be expected to adopt the resolution at the present time; and I fancy that that was scarcely the intention of the mover of it. To a certain extent I am disposed to agree with the principle enunciated in the resolution, that members of the House of Commons who are members of the Government should be permitted to go to the Senate and there take the direction and control of measures which originate in this House. Speaking generally, it has in the past, I think, been the practice to have but one representative of the Government in the Senate. It is true that on certain occasions there have been two or more, and at the present time there are three members of the Government sitting in the upper chamber. I remember, however, when for a considerable time there was but one minister sitting in the Senate, and that was the leader of the Senate, Sir James Lougheed. The practice of having as few members of the Government as possible holding seats in the Senate has always been adhered to, and I think it reflects the spirit of our Constitution. Support of this view will be found in the fact that during our whole history the major portion of every ministry have been members of the House of Commons. That practice is true of the British Parliament as well. There are very many reasons why this practice should prevail, but it is not my intention to detain the House in discussing them.
Coming back to my statement of a moment ago, that ordinarily but one or two members of our Governments have held seats in the Senate, that is easily accounted for by the fact that there would be but one minister available there for actual work, as has occurred on many occasions. It is utterly impossible-perhaps I should say unfair-to expect one member of the Government to handle in the Senate all the Government business originating in this House. I remember when the whole direction of Government business in the Senate was entirely in the hands of Sir James Lougheed, the present Government leader in the Senate. It was a marvel that he was able to take care of that large volume of work and those numerous parliamentary duties as he did, in such a very excellent manner. I think it is hardly fair to Parliament or to the country that such a vast amount of business should be laid upon the shoulders of one person. Should there be but one member of the Government in the Senate it is not difficult to imagine that on occasions he might be ill or incapacitated for one or more reasons and unable to handle Government legislation. It does seem to me, therefore, that it is quite a rational suggestion that members	of	this House who aremembers	of	the Government should
have the privilege of going to the Senate and there taking direction or control of

Government legislation, or at least assisting the Senate in the consideration of it. For that reason I would think that such a proposed amendment as is incorporated in the resolution of the hon. member from Maisonneuve is a rational one and in the public interest, and to that extent I desire to express my hearty approval of it.
Now, it may be asked if I approve the resolution to that extent, why should I not go further and say that members of the Government holding seats in the Senate * should be enabled to come to this Chamber. Well, I think if that were permitted, abuses might very easily creep into our parliamentary practice. For instance, if a government were very weak it might have the major portion of its membership in the Senate, Contrary to the spirit of the constitution and probably against the wishes of the people. That, I think, would be one serious objection. Then, the reasons in favour of the suggestion that senators who are members of the Government should come to this Chamber do not apply to the proposal that members of the Government sitting in this Chamber should go to the Senate. There usually are sufficient members of the Government in this Chamber to handle expeditiously the Government business or the public business, whereas, as I have pointed out, that condition might not always prevail in the Senate. So that the reason for my suggestion is stronger than the reason that may be advanced for the broader suggestion contained in the resolution.
I am not disposed to agree with the suggestion made by Mr. McMullen, a former member of the Senate, referred to by the right hon. leader of the House, to the effect that there was not sufficient representation in the Senate of members of the Govern-merit. I do not know that we can ever get much enlightenment from former debates on any abstract resolution. It might happen that a Government would be in the minority in the Senate and I doubt very much whether the Senate would be bound to respect Government legislation introduced by a member of the Government in a body where his party or his Government did not hold a majority, as they would be bound, I think, to respect legislation coming from the popular chamber where the Government was supported by a popular majority. I think upon this ground one might urge very substantial objection to the suggestion which was made in the Senate in 1908 as indicated by the extract from the Senate proceedings just read to the House by the Prime Minister.

I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker, except to repeat in a word, what I have already said: that the suggestion that members of this House who are members of the Government be permitted to go to the Senate is eminently a proper and a rational one, and I trust that at some time in the early future an amendment to our parliamentary practice will be made or the necessary steps taken to enable that to be done. On the other hand, I do not think that reasons so strong can be advanced for permitting members of the Senate who are members of the Government to come to this Chamber.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to express a settled opinion upon the proposal that has been made. It is certainly a most interesting one, and while I would be prepared to concur in the view that practical advantages might result from its being carried out, I think it is one which calls for careful consideration before arriving at a final decision and, above all, before taking action.
There is one phase of the matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) who made the motion, and the attention of the House generally. It seems to me that the proposal involves a fundamental change in our system of government and, really, in the British Constitution. Our parliamentary system is based upon the conception of the existence of two distinct bodies deriving their authority, if I may use that word-their right of action, from two totally different sources. We have the peoples' Chamber, and. then we have the other Chamber which does not derive its authority directly from the people, which under our system is composed of nominees of the Crown, and which under the original British system was composed largely of representatives of a particular class of the people who sat there because they belonged to that class. Now, resulting from the different sources from which these two bodies derive their authority, there has grown up a system under which particular things belong specially to these two bodies. Take, for instance, everything that touches the voting of money; that belongs to the popular Chamber. It has been suggested that there would be advantages in a minister, being a member of the Senate, coming into this House and discussing his Estimates. What quality would he, as a member of the Senate, have in the discussion of the moneys that the people's representatives

ought to vote? Is it not consistent with the spirit of our Constitution that the people's representatives should act absolutely independently of any other influence when they are dealing with matters of that kind, matters which pertain specially to them; matters in regard to which it is for. the people through their chosen representatives to speak? It may be said that it is not suggested that that member of the Senate should vote. So far, so good; but the deliberation is, I think, at least as important as the vote. Can you conceive of this popular assembly being guided, in a matter pertaining to the voting of the people's money, by a gentleman who is not a representative of the people at all, a gentleman whose role in the parliamentary work of this country is to be and act as a member of a body, constituted, after all, to exercise a species of supervising and, perhaps it might not be a mistake to say, moderating influence upon the actions of this chamber? On the other hand is it proper that into the deliberations of this body constituted for the purpose of exercising that supervising and moderating influence, a body which in consequence, ought to approach the measures that come to it from this assembly in a-I do not think it would be a mistake to say-quasi-judicial frame of mind, there should be interjected a member or members of this House whose action, in a general sort of way, those who are responsible for the constitution, thought it desirable should be submitted to the reconsideration of a body not so directly, as this body is, under the immediate influence of the popular feeling of the moment. I do not say that these reasons are, perhaps, conclusive against this proposal, or some proposal along these lines, being adopted at some time. - But I would invite the House to consider these things that I have pointed out, and to realize that if, in its wisdom, it should decide that it is desirable to recommend a change of this kind, it is recommending a very fundamental change. If this proposal is adopted,
. we shall have a new system of parliamentary government. We shall have brought into combination two bodies which, up to the present time, the constitution has looked upon as absolutely distinct bodies called upon to exercise absolutely distinct functions, the one to be the immediate or direct mouthpiece of the people of the country, the other, a body that may serve, when need may be for that, because such things happen, as a species of moderating, super-74
vising body, a body which, therefore, should approach matters with which it is called upon to deal, in the frame of mind that belongs to people who are taking up the action of others, to consider whether it was wise or not.
I, perhaps, may stop there because my purpose really is only to call attention to what seems to me to be the very fundamental nature of the proposal. But looking at it from a practical point of view, might we not have very undesirable situations created, if you have a member of this House taking part in the deliberations of the supervising body and, perhaps, feeling himself called upon to act as a sort of advocate for this House of Commons? It does not seem to me that that would be a desirable situation. I am not quite sure that it would be conducive to the perfect free play of the functions of the two bodies or to the maintenance and preservation of the harmony, whether they agree with regard to particular measures or not, that it is certainly most desirable, should be preserved between the two bodies. I would earnestly invite the House, before coming to a conclusion upon this matter, to give most serious thought to just what is involved in the change that is proposed.,


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) :: Mr. Speaker, my only excuse for intervening very briefly in this debate arises from the fact that, in the session of 1918, I moved a resolution dealing in some degree with the same subject, and it has always interested me since then; so much so, that in 1919, I had on the Order Paper another resolution dealing with the matter, which resolution, however, never came to debate. The resolution that I had on the Order Paper in 1919 read:
That in the opinion of this House all members of the Cabinet holding portfolios should be members of the House of Commons or become such within three months after their appointment.
That is somewhat different in principle from the resolution moved by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), I will admit that the proposal made by my hon. friend would effect some improvement as compared with the present condition, but I do not think it goes far enough, or that it is the correct solution of existing conditions. Briefly, my opinion still is what it was in 1918 and 1919, and it is this, that it is not in accordance with the principles of democratic government, to which we all say that we adhere, to have senators in charge of portfolios. All the port-



folios in the Cabinet should be held by members of the House of Commons, for the reason, that the spending of money and the framing of policies should be definitely in the hands of men who are the chosen representatives of the people of Canada. When I say that, I have no reflections to make upon the Senate as a body, nor upon senators as individuals. I am quite prepared to say that there are men of wide practical experience in the Senate and men who, although they were appointed as partisans, may now have a sufficiently detached frame of mind to look upon public questions without prejudice. I think that is rather unlikely; but after all, we have this condition prevailing, that members of the Senate are not representatives of the people and, in some instances -and we find it exemplified in the present Cabinet-they are men who are exactly the reverse. In at least one case, that of the Postmaster General, there is a gentleman in charge of a portfolio who was rejected by the people of Canada as a member of the House of Commons.
All of the arguments that have been adduced by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) are good; but I would attain the result that he desires, not by bringing members of the Cabinet who are senators into this House by permission, but by ensuring that all members of the Cabinet are members of this House, so that they, by right, may appear here to make such explanations of their Estimates and policies as may be necessary.
The argument has been advanced that the privilege which the hon. member for Maisonneuve seeks for members of the Cabinet to appear in both Chambers obtains in France. That may be all rights so far as it goes. Perhaps I am radical when I say that the mere fact that a certain condition or practice obtains in another country is not altogether conclusive, to my mind, that it is proper in this country. In Great Britain, they still have the House of Lords. To some extent, our Senate corresponds with the British House of Lords, but I should like to point out that only two sessions ago we decided in this House that we were not in favour of hereditary titles or offices or anything of that kind. So we are bound by the British practice in that case in any sense whatever.
We have at the present time in the Cabinet three ministers who are not members of the House of Commons, but members of the Senate. I should like to impress upon the House that at least one of these portfolios is of such importance that

it should not be administered by any other than a member of this House; I refer to the portfolio of Labour. Again I say, I have no reflection to cast on the hon. gentleman who holds the position of Minister of Labour. I believe he is a very capable, very earnest, and very sincere man, but I do think he should be able to come into the House of Commons direct as a representative of the people. He will have a great many important problems to deal with in the days to come. The League of Nations embodies certain principles in connection with labour matters that will be of direct interest to us, and call for action, by this House-such matters as are mentioned in the speech from the Throne-unemployment insurance and-old age pensions; also the eight-hour day, unemployment insurance, equal pay for equal work, abolition of child labour-all these things are embodied in the compact of the League of Nations, and if this country is going to live up to its position in the League, and the posit ion that is claimed for it, we are in duty be md to deal with these subjects. But can we do so to the best advantage if the man directly in charge of labour matters in Canada has not the privilege of coming into this House? Instead, therefore, of saying that the senator who is a member of the Cabinet shall have the privilege of coming into this House, I would say: So arrange it that members of the Cabinet shall be members of this House, and have the inherent right to be here, because they are elected by, and represent the people.
I believe that there is some force in the argument that there should be some connecting link between the Commons and the Senate so long as we have a Senate. Personally, I believe the Senate might be abolished, but so long as we have the two Chambers I would say, let us have one or two members of the Senate in the Cabinet, but not holding portfolios. I say that when it comes to a portfolio, the minister in charge of that department, and who is spending the people's money, should be a member of this House, a representative of the people, chosen by the people. I have * nothing further to say on that, except that I want to go on record as being directly opposed to the placing of men at the head of the spending departments of this Government who are not members of this House. When I brought my resolution up two or three years ago, the then acting Prime Minister, still supposed to be the member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) took exception to my resolution on the

ground that it would involve a great constitutional change, perhaps an amendment to the British North America Act. I do not think that is necessary. The Prime Minister this evening has stated that in order to carry out the purpose of the resolution that has been offered, it might be necessary to amend the British North America Act, but if the Government followed my humble suggestion nothing of that kind would be required. If Parliament declared itself in favour of an unwritten law, that only members of .this House shall be members of the Cabinet holding portfolios, no constitutional change would be necessary. It would simply be a matter of acting in accordance with that view-a view which I believe will meet with the wishes of a great majority of the people of Canada.


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add to the discussion. I wish to say that I am in full accord with those hon. gentlemen who have expressed themselves in sympathy with the idea that ministers of the Crown should have a seat in this House. With very much of the argument adduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) I am in full accord, I think it is evident to every private member that all matters affecting Estimates can be discussed as a rule, more intelligently, at any rate, with greater satisfaction upon the representations- made by the minister in charge of the department than when presented by any other person.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has stated in the course of his address that the resolution if adopted suggested, if not demanded, constitutional changes inasmuch as the Senate was not representative of the people. Sir, that gives me my clue. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) also said that in his judgment, if the adoption of the resolution did not involve a constitutional change, at any rate it would he better to have the matter thoroughly discussed throughout the country, in the press and elsewhere, before such a radical change were brought into effect.
Now I have one criticism to offer, and I am speaking as private member, neither as a friend nor as an opponent of the Government, for in this matter, I take it, there is no partisanship whatever. It appears to me Sir, that neither the motion as sub- mitted by the hon. member nor any remarks so far made have gone quite far enough. I believe that the country at large is more concerned about another phase of this question than as to whether or not min741
isters of the Crown who are in the Senate should have seats here. I believe that the great body of the people of Canada are thinking seriously about the best method of selecting senators if the upper house is to continue. I cannot bring myself to believe that it can much longer continue to be the right-it may be the legal right- but I cannot bring myself to believe that it is the, moral and democratic right of any government to decide who shall constitute the senate of this country. I am convinced of this fact, that if it is desired to give the senate a stronger hold on the sympathy and the confidence of the people of Canada than it has to-day, the best way to bring that about would be to have the people themselves choose or elect the Senate. The method of so doing is not for me now to discuss, or even to suggest. It might be by some system of grouping constituencies by which the electorate of the country could determine who should constitute the Senate of this Dominion. Personally, I think we shall have two Houses of Parliament for a long time to come, perhaps always. But at this period in the history of Canada it occurs to me that it is a most opportune time for the country, for the press, for the Government, and for Parliament, to consider whether or not some such change should be made in the British North America Act. Is it not advisable to give to the electors of Canada the right to say who shall represent them in the Senate? I.believe that the Senate should represent the people rather than the Government of any day. I think the Senate should be elected for a stated time; not perhaps, for such a short period of four or five years, hut for a longer specified time; and they should be responsible to, and be elected by, the people. If that were done, the principle involved in the resolution would not perhaps present insuperable difficulties. While I admit that a change was suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), I had hoped that he would develop it more fully, and I have ventured to express at least my own opinion, and what I believe to be the opinion of a very large number of the people of this country, namely, that the time has come when the Parliament of Canada should consider the advisability of taking such steps as are necessary in order to give to the people the right to elect, not merely the members of the House of Commons, but also the members of the Senate of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are broadly

two points of view from which the resolution of my hon. friend may be considered and from which indeed, it has been discussed this evening. In the first place, there is what would be involved in the way of constitutional change should the resolution go into effect. The other point of view is the practical purpose of the resolution itself,-which I take to be the discovery of more effective channels of information between the two Houses of Parliament where matters of great public concern are under consideration. To discuss at this moment what may be involved in the way of constitutional change, seems to me apart from the question, because the extent of constitutional change will depend upon what practical steps may be necessary to give effect to the resolution which my hon. friend has proposed.
In listening to the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I was struck by the fact that he dwelt at considerable length on the fundamental change in the constitution which would be involved in allowing ministers who have seats in the other chamber to guide legislation in this House. I do not see that the resolution, as drafted, pre-supposes any such privilege or right on the part of ministers in the other chamber. All that it suggests is that ministers of the Crown should be permitted to sit in either chamber. I do not wish to play upon words. I presume my hon. friend in introducing the resolution, intended that such ministers should not merely have seats, but should also be permitted to speak. But there is a difference between ministers on the one hand, answering questions asked from one side of the House, and giving the House information, and, on the other hand, attempting to guide legislation. My hon. friend had no thought in his mind of allowing ministers from the other chamber to attempt to influence this House in the guiding of legislation. What on the contrary, I think he has in mind, and what all of us on this side of the House have felt very much the need of, is discovering some means of getting full and explicit information in regard to matters that form the subject of discussion here.
We on this side of the House have been finding it increasingly difficult to get information touching questions of great public concern and policy, not only in regard to those departments which are not represented here by ministers, but even in regard to departments that are ministerially represented in this House. Take one of

the departments, that of Railways and Canals. I suppose more questions have been put on the Order Paper this year with respect to the expenditures of that department than with respect to any other department, and more motions have been made for the production of papers and correspondence regarding that important branch of the public service than of any other. No department of the Government has involved the country in such vast expenditures, expenditures colossal in amount. Yet, whenever we on this side of the House request information on these matters, we are told that they are under the control of a board of directors of the railways, and that the ministry has practically freed itself of all responsibility in the matter of giving information to Parliament. Take the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Since the Mercantile Marine has been established, some $70,000,000 has been spent in the creation of the Merchant Marine. We on this side of the House have tried to get information as to how the money has been expended, how much has been spent in this particular direction, and how much in that. But we are told that this is not to be given to the people's representatives because the control of the Merchant Marine is in the hands of a board of directors for that particular purpose. In other words, the Government frees itself from what is, or what ought to be, its first obligation to the Commons, namely supplying the fullest information possible on questions of great public interest and concern.
As has been stated by my hon. friend, the departments that are in some respects among the most significant, are the Department of Labour, the Post Office Department, and the Department of the Interior. When we come to discuss matters of legislation affecting these departments, these matters are taken up by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and if they are not informed, they tell us that they regret they cannot supply the information off-hand, and as sometimes happens, the. debate is adjourned to another day.
I am sure it has been the experience of everyone on this side of the House, who has tried to take part in any debate on questions pertaining to those departments, that it has been very difficult to obtain the information required to enable hon. members to proceed intelligently. Is it not conceivable that some plan might be devised whereby a minister who has a seat in the other chamber might be permitted at least to sit beside the minister in this

House who is giving information to Parliament in regard to the subject under discussion? or that would permit him to answer the questions that are put in regard to his department? At the outset if thought advisable we need not go so far as to permit him to speak. But he might he present to give necessary information to some other minister who is in the chamber and who has the right to answer questions. As we are circumstanced at present, there being no one here who has the knowledge to speak with authority for ministers who are in the other chamber, the power of this House to get such information as it needs is circumscribed to that extent. I think my hon. friend has had in mind in his resolution, the necessity of in some way restoring to this chamber the right of the people's representatives to the fullest possible information on all matters that are of public importance, not merely with respect to measures that are introduced, but also with respect to all expenditures and matters that come up in the Estimates and others that are of public concern. The need being what it is, it seems to me that my hon. friend is rendering a public service when he suggests to the ministry the absolute necessity of discovering some means whereby this House can be more fully informed on all phases of questions Which it is considering. Information is the basis of all intelligent legislation. It is information that we from this side of the House have been seeking and which we are getting in less and less measure from hon. gentlemen opposite. It is to remedy that tendency that my hon. friend has made the suggestion which is embodied in this resolution, and I think, looking at it from that point of view, we can all strongly endorse the object he has in view, though we may well agree with hon. gentlemen opposite in admitting that once some plan has been decided upon, we should carefully consider what may be involved in the way of fundamental constitutional change in giving effect to the resolution.
Mr. LUCIEN CANNON Dorchester): The resolution before the House has been introduced by an hon. member who is eminently competent to discuss it in all its bearings. The hon. member for Mai'son-neuve is a constitutional student whose parliamentary experience is long and ripe, and I think that of all the members of this House, he might be considered probably the most competent to introduce and intelligently discuss a question of this nature.
The manner in which the hon. member has discussed this resolution shows that my estimate of his qualifications is fairly good. The question is one of great importance; and as the Prime Minister said it is a matter in which the House should move very slowly before coming to a final decision. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve has made historical comparisons. He has spoken about the French constitution, and the British constitution, and he slightly touched on the American constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you examine these three constitutions you will conclude that it is, pretty difficult for any student of constitutional law to arrive at any satisfactory decision in this matter, because the constiu-tional conditions in all these countries vary. As far as the Senate in France is concerned, for instance, we have to bear in mind that first the members of the Senate are elected by the people. The senators are representatives of the people in the Senate of France to exactly the same degree and to the same extent as are the members of the Chamber of Deputies. The only difference is that the senators instead of being elected for a short period, are elected for a much longer time and one-third of them are replaced after an interval of three or four years, if I am not mistaken. Therefore the senators of France, being representatives of the people, are entitled to receive from the members of the government all the information which must be given to the deputies.
Still the French senators do not stand in the same position as do the senators in the Canadian Senate who are not representatives of the people but have been chosen by the Government.
Another consideration we have to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that in France responsible government as it exists in Canada is not recognized. In Canada the Government is responsible to Parliament. Not only is that the case, but each minister bears a joint responsibility with all the other members of the Cabinet-which means, for example, that should the House of Commons to-day vote non-confidence in the Minister of Militia or in the Minister of Justice, all the other ministers would have to interpret that vote as being a vote of non-confidence in the whole Cabinet, and the Cabinet would have to resign. But in France, the chamber may reject one minister and the rest of the Cabinet remain untouched. Therefore, when we consider these two great differences between the French constitution and our own, it makes

it difficult to accept the French system as being as effective in Canada as it might be in France. Another great difference, which was demonstrated by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, was that in France not only does ministerial responsibility not exist, but the members of the Cabinet have not to be members of either the Senate or of the Chamber.
Taking the American constitution, we see that the representatives of the people, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, are under no compulsion to listen to the members of the Cabinet-that is to say the ministers at Washington have not the right to appear before either House. Nevertheless, if you examine the workings of the Congress at Washington you must come to the conclusion that legislation there is fairly good at times, although none of the ministers have seats in either chamber. When they do give information to Congress it is by appearing before one of the various committees, either of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. Hence, the example of our neighbours to the south shows that government can be carried on very satisfactorily, even though the ministers there are not elected representatives of the people and cannot appear in either House. If now we compare the Canadian constitution to that of England, we again meet with very great difficulty from the fact that the House of Lord is not a chamber whose members are elected by the people or appointed by the government. The gentlemen who sit in the House of Lords in England sit there by virtue of an hereditary right.


Mr. McMASTER:: From the accident of birth.


Mr. CANNON:: It may be the accident of birth. Some might consider it a very happy accident, while others might deem it a very unfortunate accident. Nevertheless, the members of the House of Lords are there in accordance with rights which they possess as members of the nobility. Again, jn England you have certain ministers sitting in the House of Lords. Very few do so, the vast majority of the ministers sit in the House of Commons; but I think that all hon. gentlemen here will agree on one thing-that the British system of government as it is carried on today is probably the best in the world. I have not studied the question as thoroughly as some other hon. members may have done, but I do not think the question of having ministers given the right to appear and speak before both Houses has ever been

raised in England. The system as it exists to-day is somewhat similar to our own, and seems to have given satisfaction. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has stated that if his resolution were carried into execution it would give very satisfactory and profitable results. One of the results which the hon. member pointed out, and rightly so in my humble opinion, is that the members of both Houses of the Canadian parliament would be given better and more complete information concerning departmental matters. I do think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a great inconvenience, for example, when matters relating to the Department of Labour, or the Department of the Interior, or the Post Office Department are before the House and the heads of these departments are absent. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have again to bear in mind that every minister is responsible for the policy of these departments; and therefore every minister in the House ought to be sufficiently well informed to give the proper information desired by hon.
10 p.m. members. If in former years satisfactory information has not been given to the House, as it might have been given, I contend that it is not the fault of our actual constitutional system but it may be the fault of the actual government. Every minister in the Cabinet, being responsible for the policy of every department and for every act of his colleagues- decided upon within the Council Chamber- ought to be in a position to present better information than that which is given to the House by the Government in many instances. It might be that the adoption of the resolution would result in expediting the business of this House, but if, on the other hand, it were permitted to a member of the Senate to come into the popular chamber and enter into discussion with the members here on an equal footing, we would have the rather extraordinary spectacle of a man who is not a representative of the people, a man who has not been elected by them, but has been simply chosen by the Government, coming into the House of Commons and discussing matters with those who represent the people and who possess rights and privileges that that senator does not possess. I think, too, that if we had members of our House who are members of the Cabinet crossing over to the Senate Chamber and there discussing with those who are not the elected representatives of the people, legislation initiated in this Chamber, we would be giving to the Senate an

importance that should not belong to that body. The value attaching to legislation originating in the House of Commons arises solely from the fact that that legislation is adopted after having been considered and approved by the representatives of the people, and if the senators were given the privilege of discussing openly with the ministers elected by the people, matters of legislation, the Senate would then have as much importance in the country as the House of Commons now has, and I think that would be a great danger. And my contention, so far as that is concerned, is borne out I think by what has happened in the United States. When the Fathers of American Independence framed their constitution the important body was to be the House of Representatives, but on account of the ministers not sitting in that House, and on account also of the Senate in that way having about the same influence as the House of Representatives, after a certain length of time the Senate became the important body, and to-day legislation of great importance is always originated in the Senate. I do not think we can compare the two bodies of the American legislative machinery, because one has very great influence and the other is of only secondary importance in the working of the constitution.
This is a very important resolution, and the question arises: Should such a radical change he introduced, would it be for the good of our Constitution? I cannot say. But I venture to offer this suggestion, that a solution might lie in a middle course. .We might adopt the system which is followed in England. When ministers of the different departments are members of the House of Lords, under-secretaries represent them in the House of Commons and' act as the representatives of those departments in giving information or in discussing legislation connected therewith. Or else, as was suggested by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), a happy solution would be that all ministers holding portfolios should sit in this House, and then all the inconveniences mentioned by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) would disappear. The only province where the dual system exists is the province of Quebec.


Mr. FIELDING:: And Nova Scotia.


Lucien Cannon: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; and also Nova Scotia. I do not know what custom is followed in Nova Scotia, but in our province the ministers sitting in the Legislative Council are as
a rule ministers without fortfolio, and those who hold portfolios sit in the elective chamber. As the hon. member for Waterloo represented, this does away with nearly all the inconveniences mentioned by the introducer of this resolution.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has asked, how this change, if it were to be introduced, would be put into effect. Could it be carried out simply by a resolution of this House and of the Senate? Or would we have to follow the usual procedure indicated in our Constitution, that is, go over to England with an address to the British Parliament to amend the British North America Act? This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of our powers to amend our Constitution. I regret that this question has not been more fully discussed in Parliament. It is a very important question, and I hope before the Prime Minister leaves for London to meet the Prime Ministers of the other Overseas Dominions an opportunity will be given to this House to discuss it. Should we in the future do as we have done in the past, apply to the British Parliament; or should we take upon ourselves the power of amending our Constitution the same way that other dominions have assumed that power? That is a momentous question, and one that this House ought to be called upon to discuss either by a member on this side or by a member of the Government, so that the Prime Minister will have an expression of opinion thereon before he leaves for London.


Mr. Hi M. MOW AT (Parkdale) :: Mr. Speaker, the objection to the present method and the inconveniences incident thereto seem to divide themselves under two main heads: the first being that the information given by proxy in this House by a minister who is a member of the Senate is not of a sufficiently satisfactory character; the second being something that very often looms up in this House, the suggestion that the Senate is inferior to the House of Commons because it is not composed of direct representatives of the people. It seems to me that this latter suggestion is mainly the reason for any dissatisfaction that has been expressed. If one looks back at the discussion preceding Confederation, it will be noticed that the point as to whether the Senate should be an appointed or an elected body was ably discussed, and that the two old parties did not at all divide on political lines. The chief opponent of an elective Senate was the principal Liberal representative from Ontario, the Hon.

George Brown, who was most emphatic in his arguments that the Senate should be an appointed body. His principal reason, as I remember, was that the senators being a smaller body, great inconveniences would arise in that they would have to represent districts, and that as Canada was not then well settled and consisted of very extensive electoral divisions, it would be too much of a burden upon any senator to present himself for election. Mr. Brown's arguments prevailed; the majority of the Quebec conference were in favour of an appointed Senate, and that is the system that has prevailed ever since Confederation. The question arises, is not the country now in favour of a change to an elective system? I am informed that a very large number of the members of the other House would be in favour of such a system.


Mr. BELAND:: After they are dead.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The opinions of individual members may differ. I do not feel, however, that the Senate is given, in the minds of the people, the position to which it is entitled. The whole question raised by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve would, it seems to me, be settled' if the charge was not so continually made that the senators do not represent the people. I am of the opinion that the desirable end could be brought about by gradually making the Senate an elective body; if necessary in order to bring that about, an amendment to the British North America Act could be petitioned for. As there are a limited number of senators, each senator would necessarily have to represent groups of constituencies. In Quebec no doubt they are nominated for districts, but not so in Ontario, and very often we find that two senators come from some district, perhaps from one small town, while hundreds of miles of territory adjoining is without senatorial representation. If we could agree on this very simple expedient the difficulty which this resolution has in mind would largely disappear. Each senator now in the upper chamber would be nominated to represent a certain district comprising either a number of constituencies or blocks out of the several provinces. The senator would then be known as the senator from such-and-such a district, and when he resigned or died the vacancy would be filled by election. The term should be for, say, twelve years, so that you would hold out to a man who was desirous of serving his country in the Senate the prospect of twelve years of legislative life, and if he could not make a name for himself; if he

could not give good service during that twelve years in his country's behalf, it would be almost irrefutable evidence that he was not qualified for the position. Under the plan proposed there would be no disturbance of the hon. gentlemen who are at present in the other Chamber, but gradually the Senate would become an elective body.
It may be said that the objections urged by Mr. Brown at the Quebec conference are valid now as they were then. But that is not altogether so, because with the construction of railways and the building up of the country a man who is well known in his district is likely to be well known in the districts around about. He would be a prominent man; he could not expect to be elected unless he were a well known public man. Being elected for twelve years and knowing that he would be a member of the Senate during that period without cavil and without interference, he would be an independent representative and would be in a position to command a great deal more respect and honour than he is now able to get from the country. We would then have a system very much like the American system, where in some of the states the senators are elected by direct vote of the people and in others by the state legislatures. If a senator did not properly fulfil his duties; if he did not seem to be representative of the growing life of the country, somebody would be put in his place at the expiration of his term. It should be a long term; a senator should not have to go back frequently for election as we do, because the burden of representing and conducting frequent elections in a very large district is too great for the ordinary man to have to bear. But under the system which I propose the Senate would gradually assume a position infinitely superior to that which it now occupies and would be very much more satisfactory to the people. If this were done and we lived for twenty-five or thirty years to see the desirable reform accomplished, we would not have, because we were representatives of the people, a constant feeling of, might I say jealousy of those legislatures which had not that advantage. I sincerely hope that this proposal, which I have advocated for years and which I have written about, will be adopted. It may be a little beyond the exact wording of the resolution before the House, but it has been taken up by other hon. gentlemen during the course of the debate, and that is my excuse for offering it to the House at this time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. . Speaker, I did not have the pleasure this afternoon and this evening of listening to all that was said by the member from Maissoneuve (Mr. Lemieux). This I regret, because I know that to a question of this kind the hon. gentleman brings the research of the student, the mind of the statesman, and the experience of a parliamentarian of many years standing. I have, however, listened with a great deal of enjoyment to speakers on both sides of the House, and it would appear to me that this is a question of a very abstract nature because it has been surrounded by much sweet reasonableness from both sides of the House.
We have been referred to British precedents in regard to this matter. As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, down to the middle of the last century even cabinets organized by Mr. Gladstone contained as many members of the upper House as, if not more than, they did of the lower House; that is an example to be avoided in this country. The British people have, indeed, only apparently a bicameral system. There were two Houses operating or functioning in the British Isles when the Liberal party was in power, but when the Tory party was in power the House of Lords was a mere registry office for registering the legislation passed by the Tory majority in the House of Commons. That is another thing which we wish to avoid.
I am at one with the member for Maison-neuve in his desire that when we are discussing Estimates or legislation for which a department is responsible, the minister in charge of that department should be in this House. Where I differ from my hon. friend is in that he desires to bring the minister temporarily from the other chamber ; I say that the minister should not be in the other chamber at all. I rise, therefore, to support the attitude taken by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I would, however, make one exception; I think it would be reasonable that as, under our system, a minister without portfolio has no emolument and as the leadership in the Senate demands the full attention of the member, not only during the session, but between sessions, the Government of the day should be allowed to have in the upper house one man holding a portfolio and that one man should be a Government leader in the upper house. But I would not have that one man in charge of what I would call a great popular department. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) stated that all departments were spending departments. That, of course, is true; but they differ so much in degree that there is a distinction in fact to be drawn between a great spending department, such as the Department of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works, and lesser departments which spend hundreds of thousands of dollars where the larger departments spend millions. It is nothing short of a scandal that, in a democratic country like Canada, the Ministry of Labour should be represented in what amounts to our House of Lords. It is something which should be repugnant to our democratic institutions, and it is a great reflection upon the Government, because the Government should be able to elect a labour man in the country to support them if they really represent the working people of the country, and the fact that they take this worthy gentleman-I have nothing to say against him for the moment-and place him in the upper chamber, is as unconstitutional under our democratic practice as it is ridiculous. The idea that the Postmaster General, beaten in two constituencies, should be taken and placed in our House of Lord's to misrepresent the views of the province from which he comes, in spite of the emphatic protest of the electors of two constituencies in both of which he lost his deposit, if I mistake not, is, to my mind, unconstitutional.


Mr. EDWARDS:: That is not correct.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Perhaps he lost his deposit in only one constituency and nearly lost it in another.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not correct.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know that in one constituency, that of Champlain, the minister in question received a few hundred votes against thousands that were given for his adversary. As regards the other constituency of Laurier-Outremont, I have not the figures under my hand at the moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman will not pursue this phase of the subject too far, because it is not really germane to the subject at issue.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I find that, as regards the constituency of Laurier-Outremont, I was wrong, and I hasten to withdraw the statement. He was beaten there by 1247. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) stated that we might get rid of the question by having the Senate elected, and one hon. member from British Columbia, who

spoke in this debate, was very-strong for an elective Senate. The question of an elective Senate is certainly a very interesting one, and it seems consonant with our practice and our constitutional outlook, if I may use the expression, that the Senate should be elective. If I mistake not, the old Legislative Council in Upper Canada prior to confederation was elective.


An hon. MEMBER:: In its last years.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: Without portfolio.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would give him a
portfolio with salary. I would be just as generous to my political enemies as to my friends. There is another thought which has been expressed by the Minister of Justice with which I agree. I think it is wise to keep portfolios out of the upper house in order that it may retain that quasijudicial character which an upper house should have. I agree with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) that

it is not often that we get that attitude of mind, but it is an attitude of mind that should be cultivated by an upper chamber. I feel that I have detained the House sufficiently long, and I will now take my seat.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention when I entered this chamber of taking part in this discussion, and I shall not now occupy very many minutes. I think the resolution moved by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) is one that deserves very serious and careful consideration. In general it commends itself to me as a reasonable proposition to be made to this House.
In regard to certain changes which have been suggested in the Senate, it seems to me it would be a good idea if every person appointed to the Senate were to vacate his seat upon reaching the age of seventy. I think the Senator who has reached the age of seventy, after being actively engaged in political life, should step down and out and devote the rest of his life to preparing for the next world.
I do not agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McMaster) in regard to a member of the Senate occupying a seat in this House. Conditions may arise in this country, and have done so, where it would be advisable to have a gentleman appointed to the Cabinet who could only be appointed by giving him a seat in the Senate. We had an example of that in the last general election. In the province of Ontario we all know that the tide ran very strongly in one direction. We also know that in the same election the tide ran just as strongly in the opposite direction in the province of Quebec. If my memory serves me correctly, sixty-two out of sixty-five constituencies in the province of Quebec elected opponents of the Government, but there were thousands of votes polled in the province of Quebec by people who thought just as the majority of the people in Canada thought; there is no question about that. They did not succeed in getting their candidates elected to this House, but there were thousands of people in the province of Quebec who did give an expression of opinion in favour of the policy laid down by the Government. Now there was no way of giving those thousands of people representation in this Government except by electing one of their number to a seat in the Senate, and that was done. The hon. gentleman has referred to the hon. the Postmaster General, as he has on former occasions, as misrepresenting the province of Quebec. Once more allow me to call his attention, and that of certain other gentlemen in this House who have on former occasions made similar allusions, to this fact:	It is true
the present Postmaster General ran in two constituencies. It is true that in one constituency he lost his deposit. In the other constituency he succeeded in polling 6,196 votes. That was not sufficient to elect him, but it was an expression of opinion from 6,196 people in the province of Quebec, and that was more than twice as many people, yes, more than four times as many, as expressed themselves in favour of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: How many votes did the Postmaster General receive in the province of Quebec, without counting the soldier vote?


John Wesley Edwards: If the hon. gentleman refers to the civil vote, the Postmaster General polled 4,855 civil votes, in addition to that, there were polled in the province of Quebec 208 soldier votes. That makes over 5,000 votes polled by the Postmaster General by people residing at that time in the province of Quebec. While I am at it, I daresay it would be of interest to the hon. gentleman to know how many ' votes were polled in the province of Quebec by the hon. member from Brome. He succeeded in pulling down altogether 1,913 civil votes, and succeeded in getting 5 soldier votes; that is, he received less than 2,000 votes altogether in the province of Quebec. Yet the hon. member for Brome would be horrified if any person were to hint for a moment that he did not represent the people of the province of Quebec or of his constituency, yet all told only 1,926 people said they wanted the hon. member for Brome to have a seat in this House, while 6,196 said they wanted the Postmaster General to have a seat in this House. Let me give my hon. friend a little more information. Let me tell him that there are thirty-five hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House elected from the province of Quebec who polled fewer votes in 1917 than did the hon. the Postmaster General. Yet I daresay every one of those hon. gentlemen thinks he represents the sentiment of the province of Quebec.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How many civil votes did the hon. gentleman receive in Frontenac?


John Wesley Edwards: I cannot say offhand, but I know I received within seventeen of a two thousand majority. There is no doubt,-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I felt it was his right to reply to the reflection implied in the question of the hon. member for Brome, but I do not think it would be wise to pursue the point further because it bears no relation to the question before the Chair.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to answer the statement of the hon. member far Brome, that the Postmaster General misrepresented the province of Quebec, and should not have been appointed to that position. The hon. member said further that it was wrong for any man to have a seat in the other House as a Cabinet minister. With that I do not agree, and I have cited as a reason for that opinion the course the election took in 1917. There was no opportunity for tens of thousands of voters in the province of Quebec to be represented in the Cabinet, except by giving a seat in the Government to a man who could sit in the Senate. That is the point I desired to make, and I certainly think that under the circumstances it is a wise provision that a man who occupies a position in the Cabinet may have a seat in the Senate. I agree at once with those who say that it is inadvisable that very many members of the Cabinet should sit in the Senate. I will go further and say that it would be advisable, if possible, to have all Cabinet ministers sit in this Chamber. Now, it seems to me that the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve is one which touches this very point. I did not have the pleasure of listening to his remarks, but I believe he appreciates the fact that circumstances might arise in this country wherein the only way in which representation might be given to an important class in the community would be by giving a seat in the Cabinet to a man who is a member of the Senate. It is not advisable to carry that principle further than the point of absolute necessity. What objection can be raised to a Cabinet minister, who sits in the Senate, coming into this House when his Estimates are under discussion? He is the one who should know more about those Estimates than any one else. For my part, I can see no reason why he should not occupy a seat in this House when his Estimates are under consideration or when matters particularly affecting his department are

before the House. As it appears to me, therefore, the resolution is one which should receive very full and careful consideration by the Government, with the object of putting it into practice. I see no reason whatever why it should not be implemented, and there are a good many reasons that suggest themselves to me why it would be generally advantageous if the suggestion contained in the resolution were given effect to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Just one word before I withdraw my motion, because I only brought it forward in order to elicit as much information as possible from both sides of the House and to place the question before the public at large. I believe, from what I have gathered this evening, that a general sentiment exists in favour of some amendment to our rules for the purpose of obtaining from ministers of the Crown, sitting in either Chamber, such information as is necessary to carry on the affairs of the country in a business way. The debate has been most interesting, and I have personally learned a great deal from what has been said by hon. members on both sides. The discussion, however, has wandered somewhat from the main object of the resolution. I did not intend to discuss this evening the constitution of the upper Chamber, nor did I wish to raise the issue of the reform of the Senate. That is another question which might well be discussed on some other occasion. But I have no hesitation in saying that I stand for the upper Chamber, with perhaps a reform as regards the age limit, and perhaps election in the second degree,-election by public bodies such as universities, boards of trade, and provincial legislatures, or even, as it has been suggested, on one occasion, the selection of senators by both the leaders of the Conservative and the Liberal parties, appointing representatives in the upper Chamber under a certain procedure which was elaborated, I believe, the last time we discussed this question on the motion of Mr. German, the ex-member for Welland.
I have listened with great attention to the able argument of the right hon. Minister of Justice. He seems to be under the impression that there is involved in this resolution some constitutional change. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we should constitutionally change our system of government. I regret that my resolution was not framed in such a way as to appeal more clearly to the mind of my right hon. friend. I did not intend

at all to change our system of government. I did not have in view any change in the powers of either Chamber. What I had in mind, however, is the establishment of more modern and more practical channels of communication between the two Chambers. That, I think, would involve only an amendment to our rules. But I never had in mind having a joint address presented by both Houses to the Imperial Parliament seeking to amend our Constitution. Such an object can be read into my resolution. I simply wish to find means of conveying more information, because under our system of government there will always be some ministers sitting in this Chamber and in the upper Chamber. I do not share the optimism of my good friend from Brome in the matter of the appointment of minister in the upper Chamber. We are all human, and so long as our system endures I believe that the Conservative party, or the Liberal party will as things come and go on, always appoint some faithful to the upper Chamber occupying a Cabinet position. It has always been so since Confederation, under Macdonald, under Laurier, and under Borden. It is so to-day under Meighen, and it will be so in days to come, unless we abolish the Senate, deciding that it has lost its usefulness, which I do not believe.
The Senate may have lost some of its ininfluence, it may not have been, of late years, the great factor it was after Confederation and even at the time when I entered Parliament. I remember long before I entered this House that one would approach with awe and reverence the precincts of the Senate. There were great men in the Upper Champer formerly-men of unusual ability, men who had occupied the highest positions in their own province, and in this House. That there has been a change within a few years, and that some appointments of to-day may not be what others were twenty-five or forty years ago, is quite possible. But at all events the Senate is there as an institution. I said a moment ago it is liable to be reformed; but taking it as a fact that the Senate wijll remain as it is for many years to come, I wish to improve the relations between the two chambers. It is a matter of procedure, and at the same time it is a mati-ter of common sense, that we should have the opportunity of exchanging ministers whenever occasion arises. Let us suppose an important Bill is drafted by the present leader of the Senate. It may be a measure concerning the civil re-establishment of our
soldiers, the administration of his department, or the natural resources of Northwest provinces-the oil resources for instance, to mention only one important feature of his administration. The policy is planned by him, but the Bill is introduced in this chamber by another minister who has not been able to study the question as much and to master it as thoroughly as the drafter of the Bill who sits in the other chamber. What objectioii is there, Mr. Speaker, that that minister should, through some amendment to our procedure, be called upon to explain the new policy to the House, or even to defend his estimates when they are scrutinized and criticized in this chamber? So once more le me say, Mr. Speaker, that the main object of my motion is not to bring about a constitutional change. I simply wish to amend our system of procedure and facilitate the exchange of ideas, and the explanation of policies as presented in both Houses. I shall withdraw my resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for the attention it has given to the discussion of this question.
Motion withdrawn.
On the motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: What business will
be taken up to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We expect to take up
the Estimates, including those of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Labour, and the Department of the Interior.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Carried.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, before that motion is put-	*


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion is not
debatable.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not desire to debate the motion; I wish to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to refer to a former order for the purpose-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the Minister
of Justice is prepared to withdraw his motion it is not competent for the hon. member to do so.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11 o'clock p.m.

Tuesday, March 22, 1921